Loading...
PC 06-10-91 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA. 95014 (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLAMMING COMMISSION HELD ON JUNE 10, 1991 ROLL CALL: SALUTE TO THE FLAG: Chairman Mackenzie Vice Chairman Fazekas Commissioner Mann Commissioner Mahoney Commissioner Austin Commissioners Present: Robert cowan, Director of Community Development Mark caughey, city Planner Travice Whitten, Assistant City Engineer Cheryl Kershner, Deputy City Attorney staff Present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Fazekas moved to approve the minutes of the May 13, 1991 meeting, as presented Com. Austin Passed 5-0 POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: ITEM 1: ITEM 3: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Application 2-U-91. 1-GPA-91 (MVCP) - Applicant requests continuance to the meeting of June 24, 1991 ApDlicatiqn 2-EXC-91 (Sorensen) - Applicant requests continuance to the meeting of June 24, 1991 Com. Fazekas moved to continued items 1 and 3 to the meeting of June 24, 1991 Com. Mann Passed 5-0 WRITTER OOIBIONICATIORS: - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Chr. Mackenzie congratulated Cathy Robillard, Minutes Clerk, on the birth of her baby. CONSENT CALENDAR: - None PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 10, 1991 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS: Chr. Mackenzie moved Application 23-U-90, 3-TM-91 to the end of the agenda as the applicant was not present. 4. CITY OF CUPERTINO: PUBLIC HEARING to establish preliminary goals of the Planning commission for on-going review of the City's comprehensive General Plan Amendment process. staff Presentation: Ms. Ciddy Wordell presented the staff report. She noted at the previous meeting the Commission set preliminary goals for use during the alternative analysis and at this meeting other Commissioners from the various commissions in the City had been invited to give their input to the General Plan and how they relate to the Planning Commission's goals. Ms. Wordell noted staff has summarized the Planning commissioners goals. She explained the chart as presented in the staff report. One of the strongest points is support for a city identity and development of a Grand Blvd. Another strong area of agreement is economic development, to benefit both residents and businesses. There is a strong consensus on affordable housing as well as the level of transportation. Ms. Wordell pointed out the different points of view as outlined in the staff report regarding transportation, city identity, parks and open space. She requested, with regards to city identity, the Commissioners need to give more direction on scale and intensity. Mr. Gerry Mulvey, Library Commission, presented written comments to the Commission of their visions and goals. An enlarged library is requested as a resource for educational and recreational uses and to work in conjunction with the County. He noted the library is an educational, recreational and economical tool for the city. Mr. Mulvey went on the explain how each of the above contribute to the library and the city. The library is important to the City and he requested the Commission consider and view the adoption of the Library Commission's recommendations. In response to Com. Mann's question regarding expansion Mr. Mulvey stated it has to be negotiated among the cites who participate in the County wide library. In response to Corn. Mahoney's question regarding how this fits into the General Plan Mr. Mulvey stated it would involved setting aside land as well as establishing the background of the planning process to ensure that locations and facilities are provided for a library in new communities. He noted the Library Commission has different views regarding expansion, some feel an expansion of facilities is needed others support satellite. In response to Chr. Mackenzie's question Mr. operating longer hours would not solve the overall growth of the library usage. Mulvey stated problem in the PLANNING COJIMISSIOH MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 10, 1991 Page 3 Mr. Bob Cowan presented the affordable housing policies. He noted the Housinq Commission has put together 11 policies for the Planning comaissioners to review. Mr. Cowan explained these: Policy 1: Develop Housing Mitigation Program. He noted the city is involved in a nexus study. If the City intend to meet the state's requirement for housing, funding is needed. Policy 2: Develop Financing strategies. Policy 3: Encourage Mixed Use Projects. He noted the Commissioners all feel strongly about this. The current General Plan encourages mixed use and Mr. Cowan suggested a more direct approach. Policy 4: Maximize Allowed Density. Encourage developers to build at the high density range. Policy 5: Priority. Affordable housing made available for people who work and reside in the City. Policy 6: Permit Conversion of Existing Market Rate units to Affordable units Policy 7: Create a Housing Endowment Program. Policy 8: Community Education. Group to advocate affordable housing and the benefits to the City Policy 9: Long Term Leases. Working with churches to use surplus land for affordable housing. Policy 10: Maintenance Reserves. Available for affordable housing projects Policy 11: Affordable Rent Guidelines. In response to Com. Mahoney's question Mr. Cowan noted JObs/Housing Imbalance and Affordable Housing are both driven the state agency ABAG. He noted the law states the City provide for all income segments. The Commissioners discussed ABAG and how the formulas are developed. the from must Com. Austin felt the income housing levels are unreal. federal guidelines. Com. Fazekas question policy 3 as to how specific the Commission should be. Mr. Cowan stated the Commission is going to have to be more specific. He noted the state requires the City to designate sites if necessary. He noted the Planning commission will be involved in the land use element. levels required to meet affordable Mr. Cowan stated the figures meet Chr. Mackenzie suggested that Mr. Cowan talk with commissioners Mahoney and Austin regarding the ABAG formulas. Ms. Pat Jackson, ASAC, noted there were four areas ASAC felt strongly about: Environmental Sensitivity; Traffic Circulation; Economic Development of the City; Building Development in the city. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 10, 1991 Page 4 In response to Com. Austin's question regarding the city identity and the Grand Blvd., Ms. Jackson stated ASAC members felt that City identity is important. She noted one discussion involved Vallco as a city identity as it is already developed as a retail center. In response to Com. Fazekas's question regarding service at level C and the Grand Blvd., Ms. Jackson stated there was a strong feeling among Committee Members that they should look at what is a goal for the future and not what it is now. The goal should be for less traffic and not more. She noted they are recommending higher densities, but looking at other ways in which traffic can be mitigated. Ms. Jackson stated with regards to the Grand Blvd. the questions revolved around traffic and cost. In response to Com. Mahoney's question regarding FAR, Mr. Cowan noted that the FAR is not constant for every lot. Ms. Jackson stated the FAR would be indexed primarily on the size of the lot. In response to Com. Mann's question regarding the 50 ft. setback on stevens Creek Blvd. Ms. Jackson stated this was the policy and now it is being reversed and they are concerned about the property already developed on Stevens Creek. Ms. Jackson noted with regards to design guidelines, they should be as broad as possible. In response to Com. Mann's question regarding places to gather, Ms. Jackson stated this would include outdoor eating areas as well as other places in the City were people gather, such as the library. These areas need to be enhanced. Chr. Mackenzie question ASAC's view on higher density and maintaining level service C. Ms. Jackson stated ASAC felt other forms of transportation needs to be considered. with regards to higher density she stated housing should be considered in business areas were higher density will be developed. Ms. Jackson pointed out that ASAC saw the enhancement of the quality of life as the goal and the maximizing of city revenue as a strategy. Chr. Mackenzie and the Commission discussed the newspaper article regarding the quality of life and asked the Commission how they would define the quality of life. Com. Mahoney felt it is critical to have goals to measure against. He felt that maintaining neighborhoods as well as increasing affordable housing units should be considered. In response to Com. Austin's question Mr. Cowan noted State Law requires a complete General Plan. He noted the State requires level service E and affordable housing, the only one reviewed by the State is the housing issue. Mr. Cowan stated the city is not PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 10, 1991 Page 5 required to build housing, but must provide the mechanisms to enable the private industry to build housing. Ms. Roberta HOllimon, Fine Arts Commission, stated they have written a goal which is included in the staff report and would like this implemented into the General Plan. Mr. Cowan noted there is no formal policy regarding art, but the Fine Arts Commission have their own policy. Ms. Hollimon stated the City Council did adopt a visions statement. She noted after reviewing other Cities they came up with their figure of one percent of construction costs above $500,000.00. Com. Mann question what the art included. Ms. Hollimon noted it includes all arts including preforming arts. Com. Mann suggested rewording the goal to include all of the arts. Ms. Hollimon noted the policy they had submitted only included visual arts, but would like more time to include preforming arts in the policy. Com. Mahoney felt the policy should include all of the arts. He questioned if the art could be placed at other sites where people are more likely to gather. He question the legality issue. Mr. Cowan stated in the City Attorney noted it would be difficult to make the connection between a development and the need for public art outside the property. He suggested a statement in conjunction with a site planing for a particular development that there should be some kind of amenity on the property. He noted there are many demands put on developers and it must be determined what is feasible and what is not. Ms. Hollimon questioned the establishment of nexus by having the developer provide on site some of their facilities for use by the community if the complex has a large meeting hall and the money for the arts allocated to that. Chr. Mackenzie suggested a workshop to discuss the commissioners goals. The public hearing was then opened. Ms. Ann Anger, President, Monte vista Improvement Association, noted the State Law requiring Jobs/Housing Imbalance. She question if only the residents of Cupertino were being considered or the sphere of influence. Ms. Nancy Burnett stated she had comments from the League of Women Voters study Group relating to the affordable housing policies. She noted copies of these questions and comments will be presented to the Commissioners. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 10, 1991 Page 6 Chr. Mackenzie stated a copy should be given to the Affordable Housing Committee. Mr. Phil Zeitman, 22907 Cricket Hill, requested that the Planning commission consider a new commission be established, that being a Transportation Commission. Chr. Mackenzie noted the establishment of established by the city council and suggested Council requesting this. Commissions is a letter to the Chr. Mackenzie noted the goals committee hearing will be continued to June 18, 1991. 2. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Project Location: 23-U-90, 3-TM-91 Landmark Development (Larry Guy) Landmark Properties N. Side of Rainbow Drive 500 ft. east of Gardenside Lane USE PERMIT to construct an 8 unit semi-detached townhome development as Phase II of an adjacent 36 unit townhome development. TENTATIVE MAP to divide an existing parcel into 8 residential lots ranging in size from 1,950 s.f. to 3,930 s.f. with one additional lot to be held in common ownership Staff Presentation: Mr. Mark Caughey presented the staff report indicating that this is phase II of the development which is an extension to the east of phase I. He noted with phase II there are a number of benefits to the community. They are able to consolidate fragmented pattern of existing parcels into a cohesive whole which gives better opportunity to work with a more evenly sized site and to integrate new development into the medium density character of the neighborhood. Mr. Caughey noted there has been a change in the configuration of Phase II and the principle concern of staff is the ability to provide two access points onto public streets. He showed drawings of the two plans describing the concern. Phase II only encompasses six tenths of an acre and does not extend to Rainbow Drive. Landmark is in contract to sell the frontage parcel and there may be a combined development with the property immediately to the east. He noted the ERC concern was additional traffic on Gardenside Lane. Mr. Caughey felt this would be an inconsequential number of trips. If a problem arises there is a condition of approval to allow a driveway connection between Rainbow Drive and the balance of the project. with regards to noise exposure concern, Mr. Caughey stated the ambient noise levels have been improved. The sound consultant has recommended that the windows be subject to a sound transmission class 26 for all upper floor windows. The condition should also contain a deed PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 10, 1991 Page 7 restriction which would warrant future purchasers of the property that there is a potential exposure level, this protects the city. with regards to parking the same standard as on Phase I has been maintained for phase II. Mr. caughey noted while the basic site configuration is acceptable staff felt that before the final subdivision map is recorded they would like to put a condition on the project that would allow staff to make adjustments on the site layout as explained in the staff report. In response to Com. Mann's question regarding landscaping, Mr. Caughey stated the landscaping is minimal and is subject to ASAC review as well as the Xeriscape Guidelines. AD91icant Presentation: Mr. Larry Guy, Landmark Properties, noted that both Landmark's engineer and staff's engineer felt the ingress/egress for the project on Rainbow was not a good idea. The fire department is supportive of the circular system. In response to Chr. Mackenz ie's question Mr. Cowan noted the project was not developed in one phase because of the uncertainty of the freeway interchange. Mr. Travice Whitten, Traffic Engineer, explained the freeway interchange noting it is similar to De Anza and 1-280. He stated staff felt there was adequate site distance. The public hearing was opened. Chr. Mackenzie closed the public hearing. Com. Mann spoke in support of the development as did Com. Austin. Com. Mahoney spoke in· support of the project. Com. Fazekas and Chr. Mackenzie concurred. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Fazekas moved to recommend a Negative Declaration COli. Mahoney Passed 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: Com. Fazekas moved to recommend approval of 23-U-90 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with the following modifications: Condo 24, leaving the final decision on the egress to Rainbow to the discretion of the Director of Planning. Fazekas Passed 5-0 MOTION: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 10, 1991 Page 8 MOTION: Com. Fazekas moved to recommend approval subject to the findings and subconclusions of Com. Austin Passed of 3-TM-91 the hearing SECOND: VOTE: 5-0 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Fazekas reported on the Grand Blvd. Committee meeting. He noted it was broken up into three subcommittees: Land Use, Traffic and Economics. He noted he will report back in the middle of July. Com. Austin commented on the debris on McClellan Rd. also she reported on a house on Scenic Drive, noting the front garden looks like a fire hazard. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: - None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: - None ADJOURNMENT : Having concluded business, the Planning commission adjourned at 9:35 P.M. to the next Regular Meeting of June 24, 1991 at 7:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, tfr '~ t ~"'''p7'''' "I .' L Cat er~ne M. 0 1 ar, Recording Secretary Approved by the Planning Commission at the Regular Meeting of June 10, 1991 Do~~J ~n Attest: 4" Dorot c~ty C er