Loading...
PC 04-25-90 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA. 95014 (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON APRIL 25, 1990 SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL L"'L~ Commissioners Present: Chairman Claudy vice Chairman Mackenzie commissioner Adams commissioner Mann Commissioner Fazekas Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of community Development Mark Caughey, City Planner Michele Bjurman, Planner 1 Travice Whitten, Assistant City Engineer Leslie Lopez, Deputy City Attorney PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cant): 6. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 3-Z-90, 5-TM-90 and ll-EA-90 First Baptist Church of Monta vista Same North side of McClellan Road, 130 ft. west of Byrne Avenue REZONING of approximately 2.07 acres from BQ (Quasi Public Building) to Rl-7.5 (single Family Residential, 7,500 s.f. min. lot area) or such other zoning classification as deemed appropriate by the Planning commission or City council. TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide 2.07 acres into nine lots ranging in size from 7.600 s.f. to 10,300 s.f. staff Presentation: Ms. Michele Bjurman presented the staff report. She stated the subject site consists of two legal parcels and are consistent with the General Plan designation. She noted a tree analysis was completed and four specimen oak trees were identified on the east side of the parcel. She noted that two are in poor health as identified by the arborist and the property owner has permission to remove these. The other two trees are healthy and the developer will incorporate them into the development. She noted staff was concerned regarding the restrictions the arborist had put on lots 2 and 3 and concerned if these lots were developable. She stated the applicant has proved the site is developable taking the Rl Ordinance into consideration. Ms. Bjurman stated that staff recommends an air rights easement on lots 2 and 3 limiting both these to single story development. She noted PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 25, 1990 Page 2 the 16 ft. as noted in the staff report regarding the air rights easement was not a fixed figure and would like to work on what the arborist recommends. She stated a development restriction had been put on the sloping area. She outlined the trip generation and stated there was concern expressed from the neighbors regarding this issue. She noted staff was concerned about preserving the views from Black Berry Farm. She suggested rezoning on lots 8 and 9 to allow single story building only. In response to Com. Mackenzie's question regarding the oak tress on lot 7 Ms. Bjurman stated as part of the development conditions a 20 ft. setback is required or to apply to the arborist guidelines. In response to Com. Fazekas question regarding a Townhome development Ms. Bjurman stated it would not require a General Plan Amendment. Mr. Cowan stated a condition of approval to keep the trees could be made or staff would work with the arborist to preserve the trees. Chr. Claudy expressed concern regarding the fill near the western edge of the property line if the fill was taken out he was concerned about the trees. Ms. Bjurman stated they were going to build in this area. Com. Fazekas questioned the RHS zoning on lots 8 and 9. Ms. Bjurman stated RHS zoning only applies to areas above 10 percent plan. Com. Adams asked if the CuI de sac could be moved east to provide more space on lot 7 Applicant Presentation: Mr. Clayton Stokes stated that lot 1 is going to be developed in the next year. He noted that regarding the view, the church has never had any problem with Black Berry Farm. He expressed concern regarding the restrictions of one story buildings. In response to Com. Fazekas question regarding the entrance from McClellan, Mr. Stokes stated they had no accidents at the church. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Bob Leong expressed concern about the aesthetics of the area as regards to the restriction of one story building. Mr. Leong showed photographs taken from Black Berry Farm indicating that a two story structure would not be visible from the farm. Mr. Ken Rounsaville, Bay Area Consultants, agreed with the conditions of staff report. He explained the fill on the property and stated it is approximately 2 or 3 feet deep. Mr. Rounsaville suggested not disturbing the fill. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 25, 1990 Page 3 In response to Com. Adams question Mr. Rounsaville stated that lot 7 was a better lot for a two story structure. He stated they will not disturb the trees but treat them under the direction of the arborist. In response to Com. Fazekas question Mr. Rounsaville stated that the bulb of the cuI de sac may be moved over a few feet. Mr. Warren whaley, Bay Area Consultants stated that it is possible to move the bulb over 5 to 6 feet. Com. Adams stated he would like to see the layout of the lots in regards to the position of the house which is acceptable within the guidelines and requirements of the ordinance and still save the trees. In response to Com. Mackenzie Mr. Whaley stated that the bulb could be moved maybe 10 feet. Mr. Barry Coate, Arborist, stated that if certain sets of arborist requirements were followed it would be possible to have two story structures on lots I and 2. Mr. Coate described how the trees could be saved. In response to Com. Fazekas question regarding the two story structure on lot 7 Mr. Coate stated if the building was moved to the east five feet it would require less pruning. In response to Corn. Fazekas question Mr. Coate stated much of the area of the bulb could be covered if materials were used that would allow the air and water through. Com. Mann stated that the arborist should give direction regarding each lot. Mr. Coate stated that if fill had to go on top of fill it could be done if planned for it. In response to Chr. Claudy's question regarding a well, Mr. Coate stated it should be set back about two and one half feet from the trunk. Mr. Peter Shocks, Architect, stated there is a great deal of potential on these lots. He noted that on lots 2 and 3 the tree foliage worked well with the development and the two story structure would work. He noted the pavement would run between the trees. He stated the two story structure would be where the dead tree is. Mr. Shocks stated that the cuI de sac will be moved east if possible as regards to lot 7. The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Rylan Luke, 10434 San Fernando, stated that the neighbors would like to see this area left as open space. He stated the majority PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 25, 1990 Page 4 of people in the neighborhood are not concerned with their home value raising but concern about the neighborhood. He also expressed concern about the increase of traffic. Mr. Luke explained the width of the road out of Black Berry Farm stating it was not very safe. He noted he would like to see and entrance to this project from McClellan instead of San Fernando. He expressed concern regarding the construction and also expressed concern regarding the trees. Mr. Luke stated there was a 30 or 40 ft. cedar tree in the bulb of the cuI de sac and would like to see it preserved. He noted that the canopies on the trees on lots 2 and 3 where much larger that estimated. Mr. Luke expressed concerned regarding the 8 ft. fence being moved over three feet. In response to Com. Fazekas question regarding a Townhouse project and all the trees being in a common area, Mr. Luke stated he would still be concern about the traffic. Ms. Phylis Yuen, 10445 San Fernando Ave., stated when she moved into her home ten months ago it was agreed with the developer that the cul de sac would not be developed. Mr. Jack Goodman stated he had no problem with the proposal and noted that McClellan Ranch was open space. He stated he preferred the entrance as proposed. Mr. Anthony Shanty, San Fernando ct., stated that no one can guarantee the residents of the new development will not chop down the trees. He noted he did not want through traffic from San Fernando to McClellan Rd. Mr. Ed Campidonica, 10637 San Fernando stated they did not want the cul de sac opened. Ms. Nancy Hurd sated she liked the possibility of a Townhouse Development as it would reduce traffic. She expressed concern regarding the trees and stated she would like to see a tree management plan for each lot. Chr. Claudy stated there were two overriding issues, access of San Fernando or McClellan and the development form. Com. Mackenzie stated he had no problem with the development form or Planned Development. Com. Fazekas stated he would support the single family homes if there were fewer lots and was in support of Planned Development. He noted he would like to see adequate yard space for the single family homes. Com. Adams stated he favors the Townhouse type development with a common area for the trees. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 25, 1990 Page 5 Com. Mann stated that the Townhomes clustered around the tress will be the best plan. She stated the fence on lot 1 should not be moved. Chr. Claudy stated the Townhomes clustered in the southeast and northwest corners would save the trees and get the same yield. He would support the townhouse development. Mr. Cowan stated the General Plan allowed 1 to 5 townhomes per acre and would require a general plan change for more. Mr. Leong stated that with townhomes of 12 units or more the traffic would corne out onto McClellan. Mr. Travis Whitten, Public Works, stated they would not support access on to McClellan and if it was to be consider staff would like more time to study this area. The Commissioners discussed the trips generated with townhomes. Mr. Stokes stated that if they had to go with a townhome development it would not make it feasible to move He asked the commission to consider the single family residents again. He noted the homes meet the city standards. Corn. Mann stated she would like to see the townhome development and suggested a continuance. Corn. Mackenzie suggested a continuance so staff can work with the arborist to corne up with easements to protect the trees and would like the cuI de sac moved over. Corn. Fazekas stated he would like to see a reconfiguration, maybe dropping a lot or two. He noted he would like to see each home with an acceptable back yard. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Corn. Adams moved to close the public hearing Com. Mackenzie Passed 5-0 Com. Adams moved to recommend granting a negative declaration Com. Mann Passed 5-0 Com. Adams moved to recommend denial of application 3-Z-90. Com. Mann Passed 5-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 25, 1990 Page 6 MOTION: Com. Adams moved to recommend denial of application 5-TM-90 Com. Mann Passed 5-0 SECOND: VOTE: Chr. Claudy in response to Mr. Stokes question stated that the denial was based upon the layout of the development with regards to the trees. 7. Application No(s): Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 18-TM-89 and 42-EA-89 Larry Miller Larry Miller West side of the southerly terminus of Upland way TENTATIVE MAP to divide an existing parcel into three (3) lots ranging in size from 1.1 to 1.7 acres. staff Presentation: Mr. Mark Caughey presented the staff report. He stated this was a three lot subdivision proposal. He stated the issues of this project are concerned with tree preservation/retention as stated in the staff report. He noted a condition was placed in the model resolution regarding this issue. He noted the technical issues would be required to go through the City Engineer. He stated standards of the RHS zone would apply, wi th the exception of extraordinary requirement, to limit the height of the building to 20 ft. He noted that conditions had been added to promote the migration of wild animals. ADDlicant Presentation: Mr. Larry Miller stated he has no objection to the staff report and is available for questions. Com. Mann question the geological report and asked had the drought been taken into consideration. Mr. Miller stated that tests had been done for this. In response to Com. Mann he stated the slope of the hill will support three homes. He stated they would be following the geologists report. Mr. Cowan stated the Commissioners had control of the RHS zone and subdivision ordinance. He noted they had also control over the grading which could effect the design of the homes. Com. Fazekas questioned the height of the retaining wall. In response Mr. Miller stated after many plans this was the best design to minimize any environmental impact and keep city standards on the roadway for private drive. The public hearing was then opened. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 25, 1990 Page 7 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mackenzie moved to close the public hearing. Com. Adams Passed 5-0 Com. Mackenzie stated he was in support of the application and the staff report. Com. Adams spoke in favor of the subdivision. Com. Fazekas stated he felt it was over graded, stating that for a retaining wall to go over 8 ft. for a driveway is too high. he noted there was 2 to 1 grading behind the 16 ft. high retaining walls. He stated the lot was too steep. Com. Mann expressed concern regarding the grade and the slope. Mr. Maurie Nelson, civil Engineer, explained the grading and pointed out where the 16 ft. retaining wall is. He stated the average height of the wall is 8 or 9 ft. and stated that because of the grading and topography at one point the wall reaches 16 ft. Chr. claudy spoke in support of the project. In response to Com. Mackenzie's question Mr. Caughey stated that each lot could not be subdivided further. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: NOES: 8. Com. Mackenzie moved to grant a negative declaration Com. Adams Passed 5-0 Com. Mackenzie moved to approve application 18-TM-89 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the staff report. Com. Adams Passed 5-0 Com. Mann, Com. Fazekas Application No(s): Applicant: property Owner: Location: 6-TM-90 and 12-EA-90 William Guengerich William Guengerich Northwesterly terminus of Lindy Lane TENTATIVE MAP to divide an existing parcel into two (2) lots of 21,700 s.f. and 20,900 s.f. respectively. Staff Presentation: Mr. Mark Caughey presented the staff report. He stated this property is in a convention zoning district. He stated that the existing house on parcel 1 is already served by an existing private driveway across another parcel. He noted the proposed parcel 2 would be similarly served. He noted there was a condition in the staff report to require the applicant, if the city PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 25, 1990 Page 8 would deem it in the public interest to do so, to participate in the cost of acquiring additional space on the adjoining properties to the south for partial completion of a public driveway. He noted condi tions in the staff report regarding the location of the retaining wall. Com. Fazekas question the number of houses which required a 60 ft. right of way. In response Mr. Caughey stated they normally look at the configuration and the distance that is necessary to connect a private driveway to a street. He noted this is done on an individual basis. Mr. Whitten stated the standard is five homes on private road to initiate a pUblic right-of-way. Mr. Cowan stated eventually this driveway will become public with more development. Mr. Travis Whitten stated that under state law it would be difficult to require the developer of two homes to put in a public driveway. Ms. Leslie Lopez, Deputy City Attorney stated that if the developer was developing five houses instead of two then they could be required because of the impact to put in a public right of way. Mr. Cowan stated there was a similar situation on Regnart Road, but they finally got a public right-of-way when the development was finished which is what will happen in this situation. ADDlicant Presentation: Mr. William Guengerich, 21950 Lindy Lane, stated he was planning to subdivide his current one acre lot. he stated the proposal is to put the structure on the west side of the lot. He stated he will be glad to participate at such time when a public right-of-way is required. In response to retaining wall property. Com. Fazekas question Mr. can be moved so as not Guengerich stated the to encroach on other Mr. Maurie Nelson, Engineer, explained where the retaining wall is, stating it could be moved up from the property line. Mr. caughey stated there was a description of the location of the retaining wall in the staff report. He noted the main concern was to get the retaining wall off the property line so as not to encroach on other property. He stated the reason for moving the retaining wall up slope was so that most of the retention could be done on the side furthest away from the adjoining resident and also to avoid the necessity to engineer the wall for an excessive surcharge. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 25, 1990 Page 9 The public hearing was opened MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Mackenzie moved to close the public hearing Com. Fazekas Passed 5-0 Com. Mackenzie moved to grant a Negative Declaration Com. Fazekas Passed 5-0 Com. Mackenzie moved to approve application 6-TM-90 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing with condition 10 modified: The City may require a public road and require the property owner to participate porportionally at any time in which five or more properties are obligated to participate in a public right-of-way. Com. Mann Passed 5-0 NEW BUSINESS: -None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: -None REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Robert Cowan reported on the City Council Meeting. He stated the applicants for the Goals Committee the Commission reviewed were approved by Council. He noted a Toxic Gas Ordinance was adopted. He stated the Council continued the front yard landscaping issue. Mr. Cowan briefly reviewed the issues to be discussed at the Planning commission meeting of May 30, 1990 regarding the General Plan. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: Com. Mann commented on senior housing in Hidden Hills.