Loading...
PC 11-28-94 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIF'ORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON NOVEMBER 28, 1994 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL commissioners Present: Chr. Mahoney Com. Doyle Com. Austin Com. Harris Com. Roberts staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of community Development Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Michele Bjurman, Planner II Vera Gil, Housing Specialist APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 8, 1994 - Adjourned meeting November 14, 1994 - Regular meeting Com. Harris amended the minutes of November 8th as follows: 1. Page 2, "Mr. Don Carr..." should read "Mr. Chuck Carr..." 2. Page 5, lOth paragraph, add to Mr. viskovich's comments "The proposed water tank will serve more than the proposed development." 3. Page 7, 9th paragraph, the last two sentences should read "citing studies showing elevated leukemia rates in children tied to EMF's, she noted any development should be considered at the background level distance of two hundred feet." and "She did not feel that the EIR should state that the impacts of EMF's would not be significant." 4. Page ll, 2nd paragraph, add the ratio for parks, which is 3 acres per thousand. 5. Page 12, last paragraph, add the words "a lower" before "category" and delete "another". 6. Page 13, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence should read "Com. Harris pointed out that the frontage of site #8 on Stevens Creek should remain commercial." 7. Page 13, 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence should read "She noted school sites are good recreational areas, but they do not replace parks and she would not be opposed to pocket parks." Also add the following sentence "She also said that the she did not feel the private space in developments would replace the need for residents to have park space outside the development." PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 28, 1994 Page 2 SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the minutes of November 8, 1994, as amended. Com. Roberts Passed 5-0 MOTION: Com. Harris amended the minutes of November 14th as follows: 1. Page 5, 4th paragraph, add "arrived at this time to represent the applicant and presented pictures..." 2. Page 6, last paragraph, add "quiet areas" after "landscaped" 3 . Page l3, loth paragraph should read the slope adjustment is applied restrictive. She spoke in favor formula with alternative 3. "Com. Harris stated when to Alt. 3 it is too of no slope adjustment 4. Page 15, 2nd paragraph under staff presentation, add the words "of the tandem jackpot building" after the word "height" 5. Page 15, 4th paragraph under staff presentation, add the word "use" after the word "park". SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to approve the minutes of November 14, 1994, as amended Com. Doyle Passed 5-0 MOTION: WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR Item 3: Application 10-U-94 and 29-EA-94: Barry Swenson Builder, Stevens Creek Blvd./Tantau - Request continuance to the planning commission meeting of December 12, 1994 Item 5 Application 81,165 Citywide. Consideration of ordinance - Request continuance of January 9, 1994. and 23-EA-94: City of Cupertino, amendment of general commercial to the planning commission Meeting Item 2 Application 9-lJ-94, J-Z-94, 8-TM-94 and 27-EA-94, 20691 Homestead Road. Request continuance to the planning commission meeting of December 12, 1994. Mr. Jim Sisk, representing the applicant for item 2, stated they are willing to meet with the neighbors and noted the plans are not completed at this time. He also noted that Mr. John vidovich will become involved in this development. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 28, 1994 Page 3 SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to continue items 2, 3, and 5 as listed above. Com. Roberts Passed 5-0 MOTION: ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ms. Lenore Slaten, Shadow Oak Ln., stated there are a large number of people present to speak on item 2, but are willing to work with the developer at this time. Com. Doyle suggested that the neighbors establish a list of items which have been resolved and those which need to be resolved to present to the planning commission. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 1. Application No: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: l6-ASA-94 The Southland corporation Same 21490 McClellan Road ASA application to change the facia on an existing convenience store Staff Presentation: city Planner Wordell presented the request as outlined in the staff report. She noted the proposed changes would draw greater attention to the building, as is the applicant's intent. Staff does not believe this is desirable, therefore recommends denial. ftpplicant Presentation: MS. Anette Smith, 837 Live Oak #4, Menlo Park, stated this is a change in the corporate logo and is being done nationally. Ms. Smith passed out photos of the existing 7-ll logo and the proposed logo. Chr. Mahoney opened the hearing for public input. Com. Austin stated she would support staff's recommendation. Com. Doyle stated he would also support staff's recommendation because this is in a residential neighborhood and does not believe the added signage will bring more attention for sales purposes. Com. Roberts stated he would support staff's recommendation and believes it is a bad idea to introduce illumination into this part of the city. Com. Harris stated the illumination would serve to extend the sign and this is not the intent of the sign ordinance. She noted the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 28, 1994 Page 4 existing colors recommendation. are tasteful and would support staff's Chr. Mahoney stated he would support staff's recommendation, primarily because of the location. Ms. Smith stated they are willing to reduce the sign to 3 ft. tall and 20 ft. wide with the same stripes. Mr. Cowan stated the commission needs to take action on the item on the agenda and the applicant can submit a new proposal to staff. SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin findings and Com. Doyle Passed moved to deny l6-ASA-94 subject subconclusions of the hearing to the MOTION: 5-0 4. Application No: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 9-TM-94 Emily Chen Henry Lozano 20800 McClellan Road TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide .96 acres into 4 lots. staff Presentation: Planner Bjurman presented the staff report noting the proposal is to demolish the existing home, subdivide the lot and create a half cul-de-sac. In the future the adjacent parcel would be subdivided, creating the second half of the cul-de- sac. She stated the question is if the parcel should be subdivided into three or four lots. She presented a site plan map outlining four lots, one being a flag lot. Ms. Bjurman suggested that the commission approve the tentati ve map with a three lot configuration. Regarding parking Ms. Bjurman stated staff recommends that the condition of approval be modified to allow staff the flexibility to work with the Central Fire District to determine whether the applicant has the option to either sprinkle - the homes or have on-street parking. If no on-street parking is allowed they would require on-site parking. She stated staff is recommending approval for a three lot subdivision. She stated rezoning is not part of tonight's hearing. She added the adjoining parcel received approval in 1989 for a rezoning for just the rear portion of the property to a 7500 sq. ft. lot. It would be staff's intent that, in the future the adjacent lot would be rezoned to RI- 7.5 The commission discussed the size of the lots on the surrounding streets. Ms. Bjurman stated 45% FAR is allowed for a two story home. She noted it is staff's recommendation that in the future, the planning commission consider rezoning this parcel to RI-7.5. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 28, 1994 Page 5 She also pointed out that the cul-de-sac was not brought further south because of the adjacent existing house and the more the street is moved down the less net lot area for lot 4. Applicant Presentation: Ms. Emily Chen, Developer, stated they would like to have a four lot subdivision and believes a flag lot is a good solution to achieve this. She presented a new configuration to the commission. Ms. Chen noted she has developed two flag lots in the city within the last year and believes these are safer and more private. Ms. Chen reviewed the new configuration presented to the commissioners. She also passed out pictures of existing homes on flag lots and a city map outlining locations of flag lots. She stated that all homes will be built with a three car garage. She also stated they support rezoning this parcel to Rl-7.5 and would like to reserve the right to preserve the existing home. In response to commissioners questions, Ms. Bjurman stated she has reviewed the new configuration (presented by Ms. Chen) and suggested at that time that the applicant redesign with three lots. She noted if the commission wish to consider this she would request a continuance to receive more information regarding elevations etc. Com. Austin stated if the commission wish to consider the new plans it should be continued at this time to allow staff more time to study the new plan. Com. Roberts asked if there was any active discussion with the adjoining property owner, that would permit coordinating this subdivision with his property? Chr. Mahoney stated there is an existing new home on the adjacent property. Chr. Mahoney opened the public hearing. Mr. Jim Fisher, 20820 McClellan Rd., noted that this is an interior parcel surrounded by other property owners. He stated he opposes this development on the following grounds: 1. When he moved into his home it was zoned Rl-IO and another four units will impact traffic and noise 2. Half a driveway is a concern and when completed it will be 8 ft. from two of his bedrooms. 3. Concern about the work to be done on the underground utilities. He requested that the Tentative Map be redesigned, and would like more information. PLANNING COMMISSION MINlJTES November 28, 1994 Page 6 In response to commissioners questions, Mr. Fisher stated the 10 ft. PG&E easement is along the rear property line. He also noted he would like this property to remain Rl-l0. He noted other neighbors not present are opposed to this proposed development. Ms. Betsy Fox Fisher, 20820 McClellan Rd., stated she would request a redesign of this proposal. She stated when they bought their home they liked the one acre lots. She noted she is opposed to any change in the zoning and would like to preserve the value of their home. She stated she would invite the commission to visit the neighborhood and see the potential impact. Ms. Fisher added she would like to see the completed plan and get more details on the cul-de-sac and also the opportunity to work with the property owner and developer. Planner Bjurman stated she met with the Fishers and outlined the conventional nature of this zoning district for both the applicant and the adjoining parcels. She noted with regards to accuracy of the map, she has a title report which was drawn less than 45 days ago which shows no easement along the rear property line. She also noted only with a PD zoning does the city have the authority to review the locations of the rooms, the material type, etc. She noted anyone in this neighborhood can construct a second story as long as it meets city codes. Mr. Cowan stated during the general plan discussions flag lots were discouraged unless there was a historical pattern. Chr. Mahoney stated the issue was how do flag lots affect the community and does it isolate those people living on flag lots. Mr. Greg Wong, 831 Kim st., stated he is opposed to the proposed development because his privacy will be impacted with two story buildings, property values will depreciate and the plan is very unclear. Mr. Wong stated the neighbors should be given more consideration and would like to talk to the developer and be involved in the decision making process. Mr. Jim Keenan, 7565 Erin Way, stated he is concerned about the physical safety of his home and the surrounding homes. He believes this plan was not well thought out and noted the biggest problem with the plan is the location of the cul-de-sac. He expressed concern about access of emergency vehicles to lot four. He stated the plan should be redrawn and a three lot subdivision should be considered. Mr. Gary Leighton, 7571 Erin Way, stated he shares the same PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 28, 1994 Page 7 concerns as Mr. Keenan and noted the plan is vague and incomplete. He also expressed concern about emergency vehicle access. Mr. Leighton expressed concern about the number of trees to be removed and opposes the four lot subdivision. Ms. Carol Lin, representing Mr. Ho, 10369 Tula Ln., who lives on a flag lot and is very happy. She noted Mr. Ho believes flag lots are more private and safer. Mr. Jason Tang, 10271 Bonny Dr., stated the proposed project will promote the community and provide housing for this area. He spoke in support of a flag lot and would strongly recommend approval of this project. Mr. Pete Kanera, 8ll Kim st., stated he is not opposed to two story homes, but expressed concern about privacy impacts with the proposed development. He also expressed concern about people making a left hand turn into this development off McClellan Rd. Mr Henry Lozano, 20800 not in good condition. of which was handed in McClellan Rd., Mr. Lozano read for the record. noted the existing home is a prepared statement a copy Com. Roberts stated several people have expressed concern regarding the cul-de-sac and asked has the adjoining property been subdivided? Planner Bjurman stated in 1989 the property owner of the adjacent lot applied for a sUbdivision, but the map was never finalized. She noted they can only require the cul-de-sac to be completed if the property owner applies for a subdivision again. Ms. Chen stated that if this subdivision is approved all setback regulations will be adhered too. Regarding traffic, Ms. Chen stated the property owner will dedicate 10ft. on the front of the property. She noted underground utilities will be an advantage to the neighborhood. She added that the trees to be removed are fruit trees and they will plant more trees on the front of the property. Com. Harris stated the commission needs to decide if they want Rl- 10 or Rl-7.5. She noted if they decide on Rl-7.5 there is room for four lots and they should work with the developer and see how this will work. She stated she is not in favor of flag lots and believes there is a fire safety issue. She also noted streets do not have a general unified neighborhood character with a flag lot. She added she would not approve the flag lot as presented and would approve three lots. She questioned why this property would be rezoned to Rl-7.5 if only three lots are permitted? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 28, 1994 Page 8 Com. Roberts stated he does not like irregular shaped lots and if this property was subdivided into four lots they will end up with a strange solution that the neighbors will not support and be an embarrassment to the city. He stated he would support the three lots at this time, and if three lots are approved, he sees no reason to rezone. Com. Harris stated she would approve three lots with the plan before them, but would consider four lots if the zoning was Rl-7.5. She spoke in favor of Rl-7.5 lots. Mr. Cowan stated if the property remained at RI-IO the cul-de-sac would have to be extended to the south because the front two lots are Rl-7.5. Com. Doyle spoke in support of three lots and if four was to be considered he would like more details. He expressed concern about the half road and safety. He suggested they limit the removal of trees that provide privacy to the neighborhood. Chr. Mahoney stated if four lots could be created appropriately he would support this, but would support three lots at this time. Chr. Mahoney stated the majority of the commission support lots one and two, and lots three and four combined for a total of three lots. The commissioners discussed three lots vs four lots. Planner Bjurman stated it is staff's opinion that four lots can not be created. Ms. Chen stated they would like to continue this item and will present the same plan as they presented tonight with four lots. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: NOES: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: NOES: Com. Austin moved to approve application 9-TM-94 with three lots as recommended by staff Com. Roberts Failed 2-3 Corns. Mahoney, Doyle, Harris Com. Doyle moved to continue application 9-TM-94, to the meeting of December l2, 1994, to allow the applicant time to prepare another alternative. Com. Harris Passed 3-2 Corns. Austin, Roberts PLANNING CO¡~IISSION MINUTES November 28, 1994 Page 9 NEW BUSINESS 6. Housing Mitigation Manual. staff Presentation: Ms. Vera Gil, Housing Specialist, presented the staff report and noted staff would like the in-lieu fee to be an incentive for developers to build BMR units on-site. She added if developers are allowed to continue to pay in-lieu fees rather than developing the BMR units, the housing element goals will not be attained. She stated staff recommends that the commission request council to approve restructuring the program allowing the developers less flexibility in meeting the BMR requirement. Ms. Gil reviewed the changes to the manual. Com. Harris commented on several sections of the manual: section 2.2.3 add "within 5 years" to the very last sentence of this section; section 2.4.3 "De Ànza college students" should not be a priority for ownership units, but should be for rental units. She stated immediate family members of Cupertino residents should be a high priority; section 2.5.1 delete "De Anza College students"; section 2.6.4, add a time frame. Ms. Gil suggested 60 days; section 2.8.3 Com. Harris would suggest three opportunities to refuse a unit. Com. Harris made the following comments on Office/Industrial: section 1.2.6, add definition of price capped units; section 1.4.3 add immediate family members of Cupertino residents; same with section 1.5.1; section 1.5.3 three opportunities to refuse a unit in a development; section 1.6.4 (a) time limit should be 60 days; section 1.6.4 (b) 60 days as opposed to 30 days; section 1.6.6 suggest a 15 year period for priced capped units. Mr. Cowan stated that the office/industrial section involved many discussions with the business community and any changes should go back to them for review. Com. Harris questioned what happens when rental units become for sale and for sale units become rental? Ms. Gil stated she will talk to the companies and stated they should be able to use the same language as is in the residential section. The commission discussed the in-lieu fee and how the changes will affect large developments as well the development of a single family home. Chr. Mahoney stated the issues are: 1. Does the commission still want an in-lieu fee for more than 10 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 28, 1994 Page 10 units? 2. What is a reasonable in-lieu fee for less than 10 units? 3. Should there be steps? 4. On-site BMR units or not? 5. The number of refusals allowed, and other housekeeping matters. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Farokh Debao, Nile Dr., stated that on-site units should be encouraged. He noted there are some BMR units in Cupertino Waterfall and these blend in well. He would also encourage the commission to have no in-lieu fees for more than 10 units. He asked if this ordinance is passed what will prevent developers from saying they can't build these? Ms. Gil stated they cannot prevent this. Com. Harris suggested adding language about property owners buying existing property and making these affordable units. Ms. Gil stated this language was deleted because it was determined that it would be cheaper to build the units on-site. Mr. Cowan stated this issue is difficult to deal with when developing homes in the hillsides. Chr. Mahoney reiterated the list above and added #6. Project performance. Com. l. 2. 3 . 4. 5. 6. Com. l. 2. 3. 4. 5. Austin's comment on the above list: Eliminate the in-lieu fee for over 10 units. The fee recommended by staff is acceptable. will look into steps when she hears from the city Attorney. BMR units should be on-site. Three is a reasonable number of refusals. Homes should be clustered with less amenities. Doyle's comments on the above list: Eliminate the in-lieu fee for over 10 units. Concept of a fee is right, but questions the dollar amount. In favor of steps as he does not feel the fee structure is appropriate for an individual home. Prefer the BMR units to be on-site, but also in favor of disbursing the units throughout the city. Leave the number of refusals at two. Com. Doyle also spoke in favor of leaving the price capped units at 10 years as written in section 1.6.6 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 28, 1994 Page 11 Com. 1- 2. 3. 4. 5. Com. 1- 2 . 3 . 4. 5. 6. Robert's comments on the above list: Eliminate the fee for more than 10 units. Believes 10% would provide an effective driver for affordable housing. In favor of looking at steps. In favor of BMR units on-site and adhering to this may provide a wider range of housing types. The number of refusals should be 3. Harris' comments on the above list: Eliminate in-lieu fee over 10 units. The fee proposed is reasonable, but there should be no fee for one or two units. Would like examples of the fee on recently proposed and approved projects. On-site units is preferred, but there is a need to provide options and would be in favor of the off-site land proposed. lJnits should be disbursed throughout the community. Right of first refusal should be consistent - 60 days. De Anza full-time students should be rental priority, not ownership priority. 15 years on the price capped units. Com. Harris questioned how the in-lieu fee is calculated for apartments? Ms. Gil stated this is a different fee structure. The fee is the difference between the market rent and the BMR rent and capitalized over 30 years at the current market interest rate. Com. Harris stated the above formula will not work because of the inequity that would be created by significant fluctuations in the interest rate, and suggested establishing a cap rate based on market value and income of a complex. Staff stated they will work on this and give examples. Chr. Mahoney said he has a philosophical problem with the nexus for the need of affordable housing and particularly with providing on- site units. He noted we live in a capitalist system for which people do not have the same economic rights. He added it is an economic prize to live in Cupertino or the foothills which should not be afforded to all economic levels. He spoke in favor of eliminating the in-lieu fee for over 10 units and using steps and is not in favor of on-site units. Regarding on-site units, Com. Doyle stated he prefers the units on- si te but suggested coming up with a formula to disburse them throughout the city. Chr. Mahoney stated the commission would like more data on steps PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 28, 1994 Page 12 and fees and also more information about on-site vs. off-site units. Information is also requested on items raised by Com. Harris. The commission continued this item to January 23, 1994. 7. consideration of cancellation of December 26, 1994 meeting. SECOND: VOTE: Com. Austin moved to cancel the meeting of December 26, 1994. Com. Roberts Passed 5-0 MOTION: REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Com. Austin reported on her tour of the Kaiser Cement plant noting this was a worthwhile tour and would encourage other commissioners to go. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS Com. Harris commented on an article in the Mercury News, November 19, 1994, regarding the Private Property Rights Restoration Act. She asked if this will affect the diocese property. Ms. Wordell stated she did talk to the City Attorney who indicated he will inform staff if the Bill passes. Com. Harris addressed Nick Sazbo' s letter to the Editor. She stated she will give the article to staff to make copies for other commissioners. Com. Harris commented on the newspaper article titled "Commission Considers Diocese Zoning History" and noted the commission did not recommend anything for approval. city Planner Wordell stated the newspaper will make a correction. Com. Roberts presented articles to staff regarding EMF's and takings legislation to make copies for other commissioners. Chr. Mahoney addressed exceptions to the hillside policy and noted this is written up in the Mercury News. The commission discussed the hillside policies and Chr. Mahoney asked if the commission would like to open this issue for discussion? Mr. Cowan stated the city must allow a property owner reasonable use of his property. He stated if the commission wish to discuss the policy, they must put it on the agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION MINlJTES November 28, 1994 Page 13 Com. Austin stated she would like to revisit this. Com. Roberts stated it would be helpful to review the approvals and denials of development in the hillsides. Com. Doyle stated he is not in favor of opening up this issue. Com. Harris stated she would like clarification from the Council. After much debate, the commission stated they would leave things as is for the next few developments. Ms. Wordell stated staff has a summary of all the decisions made with regards to hillside developments and she will present this to the commissioners. ADJOURNMENT Having no other business the planning commission adjourned at 11:10 p.m. to the meeting of December 6, 1994. Respectfully submitted ~ \VI. Ro-WJ",rd catherine M. Robillard Minutes Clerk