Loading...
PC 09-12-94 crry OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 12, 1994 ORDER OF BUSINESS CLOSED SESSION ON PENDING LITIGATION (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a) ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF SAN JOSE VS. CITY OF CUPERTINO (SUPERIOR COURT CASE NUMBER 7326583) Mr. Bob Cowan, Director of community Development, announced that the Planning Commission met at 6 p.m. with the city Attorney to discuss, in general, the pending litigation. He stated the purpose of the meeting was to obtain a general briefing and no action was taken. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL commissioners Present: Chr. Mahoney Com. Doyle Com. Austin Com. Harris commissioners Absent: Com. Roberts Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of community Development ciddy Wordell, city Planner Thomas Robillard, Planner II Michele Bjurman, Planner II Charles Kilian, city Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve the minutes of August 8, 1994, as submitted. Com. Doyle Passed 3-0-2 Com. Harris Corn. Roberts SECOND: VOTE: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - No Discussion POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR Item 8: APplication 8l.16l and 19-EA-94 - Amendments to the Park Dedication Ordinance - Recommend continuation to the PL~iN~NG CO?u~~~~îuN S~ptGffiber ~2, ~~04 Page 2 b...ï....·....·t· J·.J....I.....I:;U..LLo....... Planning Commission Meoting of October 10, 1994. Item 9: ADDlication 81.156 and 9-EA-94 - citv of ChaDter 19.40. Residential Hillside Zones continuation to the Planning Commission september 26, 1994. CUDertino - - Recommend Meeting of MOTION: Com. Doyle moved to of October 10, 1994 Com. Harris Passed Com. Roberts postpone items 8 and 9 to the meeting and september 26, 1994, respectively. SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: 4-0-1 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Farokh Debao, 10257 Nile Drive, addressed his concerns with the city Center area in general. He noted there has been no public hearings on how the individual parcels will be allocated and this is a concern of the neighbors. He noted 300 residential units were designated for this area and only 120 are proposed. He stated he would request hearings to address these issues before the Commission discuss application 7-U-94. Planning Director Cowan stated the vehicle for determining the land use for this area is the stevens Creek specific Plan for which the City will conduct hearings in October. He stated with regards to the 120 units proposed at this meeting, the question is if this project can be approved prior to the plan? He noted staff recommends that they do not hold the developer up at this time. Ms. Mary Lou Lyon, 879 Lily Ave., Historical society, stated they have started proceedings from several historical societies and are working with steve Dowling to memorialize a plaque for Elijah Stephens on stevens Creek Blvd. Ms. Lyon gave a brief history on Mr. Stephens. She noted she has an appointment with steve Dowling to find the appropriate location for the plaque. She stated the plaque will be on City property, but will be at no expense to the City. CONSENT CALENDAR 2. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 12-ASA-94 Sign Enterprises Stevens Creek Cupertino Assoc. 20735-A Stevens Creek Blvd. SIGN EXCEPTION to allow exposed neon and add the color "teal" to the approved color palette as required by Chapter 17.24 of the Municipal Code. PLJ~:NING CO~~IS~ION MINUTES september l2, 1994 Page J Com. Harris requested item 1 be removed from the Consent Calendar. MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve item 2 of the Consent Calendar Com. Harris Passed 4-0-1 Com. Roberts SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: 1. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 10-ASA-94 Arrow sign company John Barnhart Construction & Madge Falk 20630 Valley Green Drive SIGN EXCEPTION to the sign program and illumination restrictions (Sections 17.24.020 and 17.24.190, respectively of the Cupertino Municipal Code). Planner Robillard presented a brief staff report noting the request is for the following: l) Add exposed red neon lighting; 2) Install a third wall sign; 3) Deviation from the established sign program colors. In response to Com. Harris' questions, Planner Robillard pointed out that the sign exception is for one sign as the restaurant has approval for two wall mounted signs. He added the proposed monument sign meets all the requirements of the sign ordinance. He also reviewed the location of the red neon lighting proposed. Mr. John pinches, 1051 46th Ave., Oakland, Applicant, reviewed the background information of the Outback Steakhouse Restaurant and noted the entire sign is not exposed neon. He stated the proposed signs are consistent with the corporate standards. Com. Harris stated she does not believe the solution for recognition for this restaurant are the additional signs and the neon lighting proposed. She stated she would not support the neon lighting proposed and would support a smaller monument sign. She expressed concern about setting a precedence if a third wall sign is approved. In response to Com. Doyle's question, Planner Robillard stated the monument sign is within code. Com. Austin stated business has not been successful in this location and perhaps it is because it cannot be seen. She spoke in support of the exception as recommended by staff. Com. Doyle spoke in favor of the project, but expressed concern PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 12, 1994 Page 4 about the neon proposed. MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve lO-ASA-94 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing. Com. Doyle Passed 3-1-1 Com. Harris Com. Roberts. SECOND: VOTE: NOES: ABSENT: PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: ll-ASA-94 San Pedro Electric sign Co./Yoshinoya Beef Bowl Ray Bartels 19825 Stevens Creek Blvd./NW corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. and Portal Ave. SIGN EXCEPTION to exceed the allowable height of a wall sign and approval of a roof sign in accordance with sections l7.24.060 and 17.24.080 staff Presentation: Planner Robillard presented the staff report noting this sign exception is to install a logo which exceeds the maximum 18 inch wall sign height and to install a roof mounted sign. He noted the applicant requests a 36 inch logo above the wall sign. He stated in the past the Planning commission has approved similar signs at 30 inches and this would be staff's recommendation. He noted the second exception is to put the sign on the roof and staff believes this is acceptable because of the high pitched mansard roof. Com. Doyle stated he does not like the orientation of the symbol as it makes ita much larger sign than exceptions approved in the past. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Mark Frank, representing San Pedro Sign Co., passed around photos of a similar sign. He reviewed the actual size of the letters of the sign and presented a drawing showing the actual size of the "Beef Bowl" sign. In response to Com. Harris' question, Mr. Frank stated the existing roof color will be changed. Com. Austin spoke in support of the exception as recommended by staff. Com. Doyle stated he would support the exception as recommended by staff. PLAlINING COMMISSION MINUTES september l2, 1994 Page 5 Com. Harris spoke applicant because easier to read. smaller signs and this case. in support of the exception as requested by the the 6 1/2 inch letters on "Beef Bowl" would be She stated although she consistently prefers logos, she believes it is a safety feature in Com. Austin stated she would concur with Com. Harris, as did Chr. Mahoney. MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve ll-ASA-94 the applicant with the 36 inch high letters. Com. Harris Passed Com. Doyle Com. Roberts as requested by logo above the SECOND: VOTE: NOES: ABSENT: 3-l-0 Location: 6-U-94, 2-Z-94 (Modified) and l2-EA-94 Emily Chen Emily Chen, Frank chang and Jennifer Chang 19340 Phil Lane 4. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: USE PERMIT to construct five single family homes in a Planned Development Zoning District. REZONING to modify the existing Planning Development Residential PIRES) zoning District with regard to building pad locations. Staff Presentation: Planner Bjurman presented the staff report and noted the site was rezoned from single Family Residential to Planned Development Residential. She noted as a result of the rezoning there were a number of conditions of approval added, as outlined in the staff report. She noted the proposal at this meeting is to amend the approved zoning, which became affective september 1st and to approve the specific architecture and forms. Staff recommended that the applicant create a detached two car garage on lot 2 to preserve the historical characteristics of the parcel. In order to meet this goal the applicant proposed a lO ft. setback from the rear property line to the detached garage for which staff supports. Regarding lot 4, staff recommends a 10 ft. setback from the property line to the garage in order to relieve the continuous paving as viewed from the private drive. Regarding the Conditional Use Permit, Planner Bjurman stated setbacks and the fate of the historical home need to be discussed. Regarding lot 3, staff suggests that the building be moved east PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 12, 1994 Page 6 four additional feet in order to achieve the condition of approval which requires a minimum setback of 7 ft. Regarding lot 4, staff suggests that there be curbing around the guest parking. staff also recommends that the historical home be preserved. Planner Bjurman noted that condition 4, Tree preservation, does not reflect the city council's changes to this condition and the new condition will reflect the Council's request. Com. Austin questioned the guest parking and expressed concern about long term parking. Planner Bjurman stated they can create a condition limiting parking in this area. The public hearing was opened. AIill-licant Presentation: Ms. Emily Chen, Developer, expressed appreciation to staff for their support and hard work on this project and would request support from the Planning commission. Com. Doyle asked if Ms. Chen is in agreement with the modifications proposed by staff? Ms. Chen pointed out that if the home on lot 2 is moved back four feet, as recommended by staff, they will have to remove two trees. Planner Bjurman pointed out that the trees were not required to be preserved by the Planning commission. Ms. Mary Lou Lyon, speaking for the Historical society, stated they are pleased that the historical home will be preserved. She expressed concern about the oak tree on this lot. Mr. Joseph Schwartz, 620 Phil ct., addressed the second floor window types and noted he still has concerns with regards to the condition addressing window types. He believes there still exists the possibility of line of sight visual intrusion into his property. He stated it is unclear from the developer's drawings to what extent this may be and noted further study is warranted. Ms. Nancy Burnett, 729 Stendhal Ln., stated there are no conditions regarding Vector Control. Planner Bjurman stated it is appropriate to add a condition to the Use Permit. Ms. Burnett presented visuals both of the proposed development and the surrounding Eich1ers. She showed a comparison scale of both the Eich1ers and the Chen homes. She expressed concern about preserving some of the trees because of the soil conditions. Ms. Burnett addressed the existing and proposed trees for the property. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES september l2, 1994 Page 7 She believes more trees are needed for screening than what is proposed. The public hearing was closed. Planner Bjurman stated with regards to landscaping a total of 9 trees have been approved. She noted the developer is proposing five of these trees on lot three and Ms. Burnett is suggesting seven. She noted if this is changed they could remOVe two trees from elsewhere or change the condition to require additional trees. Com. Austin spoke in favor of preserving the historical home and would support the project as proposed with the additional trees on lot 3. Com. Doyle spoke in support of preserving the historical home and would support the project as recommended by staff. He believes the landscaping proposed is adequate. Com. Harris also spoke in support of preserving the historical home and the detached garage. She spoke in support of additional trees, but would put on a limit on the dollar amount. Com. Harris stated the title of the lJse Permit should be changed to "Four single family homes and remodel one single family home." Com. Harris reviewed the changes in the setbacks as addressed by staff earlier. Chr. Mahoney spoke in support of preserving the historical home and noted the architecture is more consistent with the Eichler neighborhood. He stated it is not the Planning commission's obligation to have trees planted to protect all the neighbors. He spoke in support of the landscaping as proposed. Com. Austin concurred with Chr. Mahoney regarding the landscaping. In response to Com. Harris' question regarding a condition for vector control, Mr. Cowan stated they would replicate the vector control language in the subdivision map. MOTION: Com. Austin moved to recommend approval of a Negative Declaration Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-1 Corn. Roberts SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: MOTION: Com. Austin moved to approve 6-U-94 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the following modifications: add condition for vector control; change title of Use Permit to read "The development of four single family homes and remodel one PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 12, 1994 Page 8 SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: single family home."; add the city Council's approved wording for the tree preservation. Com. Harris Passed 4-0-1 Com. Roberts Com. Austin moved to recommend approval of 2-Z-94 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the following modification: section III, Condition 1 should read "The recommendation of approval is based on the site plan dated 8/30/94. Lot 2 is approved for a 10 ft. rear setback and a 3 ft. side setback, lot 4 is approved for 10 ft. rear setback". Com. Harris Passed 4-0-1 Com. Roberts Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 7-lJ-94, 5-TM-94 and l4-EA-94 Cupertino City Center Associates D Same Southeast quadrant of Stevens Creek Blvd., and De Anza Blvd. 5. USE PERMIT to construct a 120 unit "For-Rent" condominium. TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide one parcel to 120 condominium units. staff Presentation: Planner Robillard presented the staff report and reviewed the changes to the conditions of approval as outlined in the handout given to the Commissioners. He noted at the last meeting the Planning commission asked staff to look into the feasibility of adding a condition restricting the use of apartments for a designated time period before being sold as condominiums. He stated it is the City Attorney's advise that this type of condition would be in violation of state law. Regarding the affordable housing, the Affordable Housing Committee recommended that the in- lieu fee not be accepted and other options should be explored to construct the units on-site. Planner Robillard showed perspectives of views from De Anza and Torre Ave. Regarding the public use easement, Planner Robillard noted that the City Attorney stated that there is no relationship between the development of this project and the need for a public use over the area. Planner Robillard reviewed the revised parking as outlined in the staff report. Chr. Mahoney questioned the BMR units, Planner Robillard stated the Housing Mitigation Procedural Manual requires the units to be built PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES september 12, 1994 Page 9 on-site. If this is infeasible the units should be built off-site. Alternatively, the developer can utilize the housing development bank and as a last resort pay the in-lieu fee. Com. Harris addressed the park fees? Planner Robillard explained that credit may be given to this application as a result of the existing recreational areas. He noted the park fee credit is granted by the City Council and there is no provision in the Subdivision Ordinance for the Planning commission to make a recommendation. He noted he can pass on comments to the City Council regarding the credit. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Mark Kroll, representing city Center Apartments II, noted apartment construction in the Bay Area has come to a halt. He addressed the cost of rents. He stated the proposal is for 120 for rent units for a period of time and he believes the project is economically viable. Mr. Kroll stated it is his belief that the process by which the city attempts to provide affordable housing is unconstitutional. He looked into providing BMR units on-site and when this failed they looked in the community for land to build BMR units and talked to groups who build affordable housing. He noted pursuant to the mitigation manual they are entitled to pay the in-lieu fee. Mr. Kroll addressed the in-lieu fee waiver. He stated this plan complies with the master and general plans and also provides housing. He urged the Planning commission to move forward on this. Mr. Kroll addressed the park credit for the amphitheater and stated they have encouraged the public to use this. Com. Harris asked about the financial stability of this project and how much rents would have to be raised to cover the BMR units? Mr. Kroll stated this project is financially stable. He noted the rents will be the same as the existing apartments. He added that the market sets the rents and it is the developer's ultimate desire to convert to for sale condos. Com. Austin questioned the comment made by Mr. Kroll regarding requiring BMR units being unconstitutional? city Attorney Kilian stated the City adopts rules and regulations that meet constitutional standards and until he sees or hears something more specific he could not comment on this matter. He noted the question is, what is the legitimate goal of the city and whether the particular application or development impacts the ability of the city to meet that goal and whether the mitigation or requirements of the city to mitigate the impact are proportional to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 12, 1994 Page 10 the impacts created. Planner Robillard passed around the color board to the Commission. Mr. Alex Sidel, Architect, stated the exterior material will be stucco and is proposed in several different shades with the base colors being grey and white. Mr. Farokh Debao stated he supports affordable housing, but believes the Commission should see how the other parcels in Town Center are allocated before approving this project. Regarding the park fees and the credit, he does not believe the amphitheater provides public open space as the public have been asked to leave this area. He expressed concern about the parking ratio and noted there was no traffic study done at Torre and Rodriguez. He suggested that Rodriguez be blocked off during peak hours. Planner Robillard stated a traffic study was done to look at the intersections at Torre Ave. Istevens Creek Blvd, stevens Creek Blvd./De Anza Blvd., and De Anza/Rodriguez. It was determined that the traffic would not adversely affect these intersections. The public hearing was closed. In response to Chr. Mahoney's question, Planner Robillard stated in order for the developer to pay the in-lieu fee they must prove that it is economically infeasible to build on-site. Mr. Cowan stated the test of economical feasibility has to do with the difference between construction costs. He stated there is a primary emphasis to provide housing on-site in the Mitigation Manual and as a last resort the in-lieu fee can be paid. He noted the Affordable Housing Committee listened to testimony and determined that other options to provide the units have not been explored adequately. Planner Robillard stated the applicant's request is to pay the $l08,000 in lieu fee and the Affordable Housing Committee is recommending denial of this request. city Attorney Kilian stated if there is a request to deny the fee more information may be needed before making a decision. Mr. Cowan stated if the planning commission is satisfied with the pres~ntation, but unsure about the BMR issue, the condition requIres a lO% obligation and if the applicant wants to do something differently the applicant must propose an alternative. Com. Doyle addressed the parking, Planner Robillard stated staff is PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 12, 1994 Page 11 comfortable with the parking ratio of 1.8 as there is no danger of overflow parking into residential neighborhoods. He noted the survey done by the International Transportation Engineers CITE) indicated the parking is adequate. Mr. Cowan stated all surrounding properties are over parked and no external properties will be affected. Com. Harris noted she toured Park Place in Mountain view. She expressed concern about the financial stability of this project and would like assurances that once this is approved the project will be built. with regards to affordable housing, she would prefer on- site development of the BMR units and believes they would integrate well. Com. Harris stated she does not feel the amphitheater provides the items that are stated in the Park Doctrine and therefore does not justify credit for park fee. She suggested writing a Minute Order to the Council regarding the credit for park fees. Com. Harris stated the amphitheater does not solve many of the basic park needs for this community. She stated the amphitheater should not be used for credit for phase II and the appropriate park fees should be paid. Com. Doyle stated he concurs with Com. Harris regarding park fees, and affordable housing should be kept on-site if possible. Com. Austin stated that affordable into this development. She spoke Housing Committee's recommendation. amphitheater, the pool and the mitigation. housing should be integrated in support of the Affordable Com. Austin believes that the weight room do provide park Chr. Mahoney stated acceptable and could Commissions opinion affordable housing Committee. the current credit for the amphitheater is send a minute order to Council outlining the on this. He stated he would support the as recommended by the Affordable Housing City Attorney Kilian stated the Commission could approve this project with a requirement that the BMR units should be on-site unless the applicant establishes to the satisfaction of the City Council that it is infeasible. MOTION: Com. Harris moved to recommend granting a Negative Declaration. SECOND: Com. Austin VOTE: Passed 4-0-1 ABSENT: Com. Roberts MOTION: Com. Harris moved to recommend approval of 5-TM-94 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 12, 1994 Page 12 SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-1 Com. Roberts MOTION: Com. Harris moved to to the findings and Com. Austin Passed Com. Roberts recommend approval of 7-U-94 subject subconclusions of the hearing SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: 4-Q-l The Commission discussed the possibility of sending a minute order to the Council regarding the park dedication fee and the BMR units. In response to Mr. Kroll/s comments regarding the BMR units, Com. Harris stated the motion included the requirement that the BMR units be developed on-site and if the applicant does not agree with this it is up to the applicant to raise the issue with the Council. 6. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 8-U-94, 6-TM-94 and 22-EA-94 citation Homes central Same Southeast corner of De Anza Blvd. and Homestead Road. lJSE PERMIT for a planned detached single-family development consisting of 79 homes. TENTATIVE MAP to resubdivide an existing ll5 lot, 7 acre parcel into 79 lots. Staff Presentation: Planner Bjurman presented the staff report and reviewed the location of the property. She reviewed the 1989 approved Tentative Map and Conditional lJse Permit. She stated that citation Homes are requesting that they widen the parcels, reducing the number of units by 3l units and transferring these units into the high density area. Planner Bjurman reviewed the following: Below Market Rate Housing; Architecture; Setbacks; Driveway Apron Depth; parking and Building Heights as outlined in the staff report. A photo montage was shown comparing the existing homes and the proposed homes. She outlined the similar and dissimilar architectural styles of both projects. A material board was also presented to the Commissioners. She noted a condition requires that the homes built on lots I, 2 and 76 not be allowed the use of brick or stone fascia treatment. She noted this will result in the fascia being stucco only and therefore more compatible with the Portofino homes. Planner Bjurman presented modification to conditions of approval to the Commissioners and reviewed them. She noted any changes will be reflected in the final approval. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 12, 1994 Page 13 Com. Harris questioned the number of high density units and BMR units? Mr. Cowan stated when the project was approved in 1989 there was no BMR requirement so the requirement for the BMR units is based on the new proposal. Ms. Bjurman noted there will be 31 BMR units based on the 84 new homes proposed and the 226 high density units. In response to Com. Harris' question regarding parking, Planner Bjurman stated parking is prohibited on the street noting that each resident will have a two car garage and two spaces in the driveway, plus community parking. Planner Bjurman stated the applicant has provided staff with conceptual site plans for the high density project, but the formal application has to be filed. She noted if the above application is approved the Planning commission will also approve the 3l BMR units. Com. Harris questioned Condition 4? Planner Bjurman stated what staff is suggesting is when there are 28 units remaining in the development then the developer must begin triggering different aspects of this development. She noted the words ..the final..... should be added before 33% in this condition. APplicant Presentation: Mr. Jim sullivan, representing citation Homes, commended city staff for their corporation. He addressed condition 9 regarding the parking and parking easement and noted the Portofino Homeowners Association CC&R's does restrict the parking on driveways to guests. Planner Bjurman stated staff is saying there should be no restrictions. Mr. Sullivan stated the CC&R's were recorded in May 1991 and have not been amended. He stated the 32 existing homes and the 84 single family homes proposed would all be incorporated into one set of CC&R's. This would be the applicant's preference. Mr. Sullivan stated citation Homes met with portofino homeowners on several occasions to discuss their concerns. He noted the homeowners discussed the standard adobe color and found this to be acceptable. Mr. Sullivan presented samples of the building materials and colors proposed. Regarding the BMR units, Mr. Sullivan stated they will provide 31 BMR units on the high density phase. He added this is economically feasible as it was factored into the negotiations when purchasing the property. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September l2, 1994 Page 14 Mr. Sullivan addressed the driveway depth and noted they can comply with staff's conditions, both on the useable rear space as well as the front yard setbacks. Regarding General Plan consistency, Mr. Sullivan addressed condition 4 and reviewed their conceptual plan for the high density area. He stated he is open for suggestions, as far as when the remaining 10 would be released. He noted citation Homes have been in business for 35 years and have built many projects throughout the bay area. In response to Com. Doyle's question, Mr. Sullivan stated the average selling price will be $400,000 to $450,000. Ms. Judy Ash, Vice President, Portofino Homeowners Association, noted 50% of the homeowners are present at this meeting and their goal is to voice their understanding and concerns of the proposed development. Ms. Ash submitted a letter to the Commissioners from the Board of Directors at Portofino dated September 12, 1994, outlining their concerns and additional requests to the proposed development. Ms. Ash reviewed the letter with the Commissioners. She noted they met with citation Homes three different times, but did not reach a consensus on all of the items addressed in the letter. Com. Harris asked what is the unit mix is of the existing 32 homes? Ms. Ash stated there are five models which are 3 and 4 bedrooms. She pointed out that the garage is not included in the square footage. Regarding the issue in the CC&R's regarding parking, Ms. Ash stated they have not paid special attention to this condition, but believes there are mixed feelings in the community. Com. Austin addressed #7 in the letter regarding a wall to separate the high density project. Ms. Ash stated the streets in the Portofino development are maintained by the Homeowners Association and if the residents from the high density development are allowed to drive on their streets it would cause wear and tear on the roads. She stated they would like to keep the developments separate for financial reasons. Planner Bjurman stated the high density project is not being considered at this time. Planner Bjurman stated the issues raised by Ms. Ash have been discussed over the past several weeks and many are non-issues for staff. She noted the only issue that would need to come back as part of the tentative map would be the shifting of the lots 56 through 75. She noted this is not part of this application and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 12, 1994 Page 15 staff would be comfortable recommending approval with some minor condition changes. She noted the Planning commission may want to see the final landscape plan. City Attorney Kilian stated the Planning commission can continue this application solely for the purpose of reviewing the letter from the Portofino Homeowners Association. Com. Austin stated she would not support the teal believes the proposal is going in the right direction. she would support approval as recommended by staff. color and She stated Com. Doyle spoke in support of continuing this application and ask the applicant to meet with the homeowners to discuss the issues in the letter. Com. Harris stated staff's modifications to the conditions are acceptable and would support a meeting between the neighbors and the developer. She noted she has not had time to review the letter from the homeowners and would be willing to continue at this time. She also noted she is opposed to the CC&R's as they stand. Chr. Mahoney stated the main issues to be addressed are what is contained in the letter from the homeowners. All four Commissioners expressed concern about condition #4. Com. Harris suggested when half the development is complete they should have to get City council approval for the project and get the loan commitment letter. Chr. Mahoney requested that staff address this issue. Mr. Sullivan stated citation Homes do agree with the issues raised by Portofino Homeowners. He expressed concern about moving the parking as requested, but would like to move forward on this project. Chr. Mahoney suggested continuing this application for two weeks and have a list at that meeting of any remaining issues which need to be resolved. Planner Bjurman asked for direction from the Planning commission regarding major issues of concern. Com. Harris stated condition 4 is a major concern as well as the CC&R's. She noted staff should also review the issues raised in the letter addressed by Ms. Ash. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 12, 1994 Page 16 SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Doyle moved to continue to the meeting of September Com. Harris Passed Com. Roberts. 8-U-94, 6-TM-94 and 22-EA-94 26, 1994. MOTION: 4-0-1 7. Applicant No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 3-GPA-94, 5-lJ-94 and 20-EA-94 Landmark Development Landmark properties Gardenside & Rainbow GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT to change from high 20-35 du/gr.ac. to medium/high lO-20 du.gr.ac. USE PERMIT to construct 5 townhomes on an ll,76l sq. ft. vacant parcel in a Planned Development residential zoning district. staff Presentation: Planning Director Cowan presented the staff report noting the previous proposal was for six units and the Planning commission denied this. He added Council referred this matter back to the commission to consider a General Plan change. He noted the applicant is requesting a General Plan change and to receive approval for the Use permit to construct 5 townhomes. He pointed out that only four General Plan amendments are allowed in one year and action cannot be taken on the amendment until January 1995. Mr. Cowan stated this plan has five units to provide more on-site parking and showed perspective drawings of elevations. He stated staff is recommending approval of the General Plan change to 10-20 dwelling units per acre, which is Council's direction, and recommending approval of the Use Permit. Mr. Cowan stated it is important to make everyone aware that the General Plan change cannot be adopted by the city Council until after January l, 1995. Mr. Cowan stated the language being affective January 1, resolution for 3-GPA-94. regarding the General Plan Amendment 1995, will be added to the model Com. Harris stated a condition regarding the enactment of a general plan amendment should be added to section III of the conditions. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Larry Guy, representing Landmark Development, stated he concurs with the staff report, but noted the park fees should be $9,000 per unit and this was confirmed by the public works. Mr. Cowan stated this will be corrected. The public hearing was closed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 12, 1994 Page 17 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ABSENT: Com. Austin moved to recommend the granting of a Negative Declaration Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-1 Com. Roberts Com. Austin moved to recommend approval of 3-GPA-94 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the following modifications: add the words "affective January 1, 1995" in section 1 Findings. Com. Harris Passed 4-0-1 Com. Roberts Com. Austin moved to recommend approval of 5-U-94 sUbject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the following modifications: A change in the park fee as addressed by the applicant; additional condition in section III to read "Approval of 5-U-94 is contingent upon approval of the enactment of the General Plan Amendment 3-GPA-94 Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-1 Com. Roberts NEW BUSINESS 10. Setting additional tentative public hearing dates for diocese general Plan public hearings after September 22, 1994. It was a consensus to set October 6 and October 26 as tentative public hearing dates. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Com. Harris addressed temporary signs and code enforcement. She stated code enforcement officers should look into this. Mr. Cowan stated code enforcement should be monitoring temporary signs. Com. Harris suggested study property. Other Commissioners the regular process. sessions regarding the diocese stated they feel comfortable with Com. Harris stated she took a tour of the diocese property with Mike Bruner. Com. Austin stated she also took a tour. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - None PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES september 12, 1994 Page 18 DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS Com. Harris congratulated Ciddy Wordell for the honorable mention for the Northern section of the california Chapter of the American Planning Association for her work as project manager on the cupertino General Plan. ADJOURNMENT: adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted Having concluded business, the Planning Commission 11:35 p.m. to the meeting of September 22, 1994 at o-Hr~ t-J\. R.~ catherine M. Robillard Minutes Clerk Approved by the Planning Commission at the Regular Meeting of September 26, 1994. a; /J /' / //1'1/7 rr--flj Orrin Mahoney, Chair Attest: . ~~ Kim smith, City Clerk Amended 9-26-94