Loading...
PC 02-25-80 r CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF ~ALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 Telephone (408) 252-4505 PC-327 Page 1 MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER/SALUTE TO THE FLAG 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Commissioner Claudy Commissioner Adams Commissioner Koenitzer Commissioner Blaine Chairman Gatto Staff Present: Planning Director Sisk Assistant Planning Director Cowan Associate Planner Piasecki Public Works Director Viskovich City Attorney Kilian Assistant City Attorney Foley APPROVAL/MINUTES of FEBRUARY 11, 1980 Page 4, Motion/30-TM-79, line 8, change to read, "or, shall modify the right-of-way in dedication so as to retain the water tower within the private property line." Page 6, Motion, line 10, change to 500 ft. "distance." Page 7, par. 4, line 6, change to read: "Com. Koenitzer stated that he could see no reason to set a precedent. MOTION: Com. Adams, Approval. PASSED Second: Com. Blaine 5-0 POSTPONEMENTS/NEW AGENDA ITEMS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised of the receipt of a letter from California Pacific Commercial Corporation on Item 11, l-GPA-80 Review, pertaining to area on Homestead Road next to the G1enoaks development. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ITEM II, Application 1-GPA-ßO of CITY OF CUPERTINO: PUBLIC HEARING to consider various amendments to the City of Cuperti 0 General Plan including, but not limited to (1) Land use changes for a number of individual properties located through out the community; (2) an evaluation of alternative land use types and development intensities for property located within the southwest corner of Portal Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard; (3) a refinement of the City's Circulation Plan including a plan to provide long-term financing of major PC-327 Page 2 MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING transportation improvements. First Hearing continued. Ten- tative City Council hearing date - March 17, 1980. PUBLIC HEARING It was agreed that each Area would be exhibited on the board, that the public would be invited to comment, and that the Commissioners would then discuss the issues with an attempt to reach a consensus. Areas A through E had been covered during the January 28, 1980 meeting but were being reviewed because of some question as to'notification of the public for that meeting. The Staff Report, for reference: February 22~ 1980. AREA A: Development would represent an extension of surrounding styles and densities. Traffic circulation for industrial, commercial, and residential land use had not changed in the area. Los Altos had agreed to provide a signal light and Cupertino had agreed to install the signal upon completion of the site. - -_.-_._--,.~----_..-----------_._- -----_._.~----_.~----._-~- --- -~_.~,..,-_. ..----- ....-,-...---- - .----_...- . Com... R ¡Ai ne._inttodu~eLa..~.is t.QLc.ri ter.iamthat..sh~tiJ I·wt_,t:~.()nab-l'Lo~ be apl'lÚTto die various ¡ireasfor-determ1n1nidensÚies. "- i)-Access to-tra.nspor-taÜö¡:ì-;---n ' Access "io" employment . 3) Access to shopping. 4) Convenience to schools (for high density family units). 5) Existing neighborhood densities and privacy impact considerations. She felt that a property meeting the criteria would accept high density. ___..,---...,.---_______u_ -----~ COM. CLAUDY asked that they apply the density designations in an even-handed manner. He felt they would have to "bite the bullet" and state what they needed to meet long range goals. He said he felt the goal of the General Plan was to provide a variety of housing for a variety of people. That, he stated, could not be done with low density. CONSENSUS: Change to 10-20 units/acre at the upper range basically two-story, ground-level parking, fairly dense development. AREA B:This area was discussed for change because of truck traffic and noise. Expected consolidation of property had not taken place. The old road had been,abandoned and the triangular corner was public property. CONSENSUS: Change to Planned Office AREA C: "The Old Hairpin Curve" was discussed from the point of view of dedication for roadway, possible in- stallation of retaining walls because of slope and ease- ment. CONSENSUS: Consistent with surrounding property, change to Residential, 1-5 units/acre de·signation. MINUTES FEBRUARY 25,' 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-327 Page 3 AREA D' . B~ remov~ng the store-front industr~al-commercial designation, it was felt that the development of specialty and convenience retailing activities would strengthen the intent of development in Old Monta Vista and would eventually result in businesses locating in the area. Mrs. Ann. ·.Anger ,resident, said she wished to have attractive businesses in the area and felt that Planned Development would do çhat. She was puzzled as to how the mixed use to commercial use had sneaked in. Mr. Wes Williams, president of the Monta Vista Homeowner Association said he felt the Neighborhood Commercial desig- nation would make a consistent neighborhood all the way back to the natural barrier, Granada. - CONSENSUS: Change to Neighborhood Commercial. AREA E: The Commissioners reviewed the criteria they had es- tablished for determining the best density levels for propert Mr. Jim Joy, 19811 Price Avenue, Cupertino, said he had been pleased that 10-20 units/acre had been agreed upon at the January 2~, 1980 meeting. Buildings not in excess of two stories and parking on the edge of the development would leave the center of the development for any three-story units Four-story buildings would not be acceptable. CRR. GATTO reminded everybody that they were talking about General Plan designations and not zoning designations. He stated that higher density meant that developers could no longer provide the same height buildings throughout a devel- opment, but would be wise to exercise sensitivity to borders, and modifications in plans would have to protect privacy im- pacts and solar rights. Points III.3 and III.4 were dropped. CONSENSUS: Planned residential, 10-20 units/acre. (Mr. Cowan asked for a 50 ft. setback and possible use of carports AREA F: These sites. being S1øi1iar, close together and wit AREA G{like'; in~ob1eills,;. ·were considered together. It was felt that the two sites were suitable for accomplishing the goal of breaking up the strip commercial aspect or feeling of Stevens Creek Boulevard; and, it was also possible the sites could be designated at a density that would enable the city to reach for the goal of increased housing opportunities in Cupertino. Mrs. Rosemary Callahan, 19954 Wheaton Avenue, submitted a signed petition from neighbors on Wheaton Avenue asking that Planned Commercial -- one-story professional office structure -- be considered for Area F. Mr. John Torre, speaking for the family owner of the property questioned the change of an adjoining office complex. He felt both properties should be the same. Mrs. Jaunita McClaren, 22101 Lindy Lane, who had sold the property in back of Area F, and had been on the Architectural PC-327 Page 4 MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING and Site Control for seven years, said she felt strongly that Commercial designation would be compatible in the area. Mr. Meryl Brooksby, homeowner behind the Site F, felt there was nothing consistent with designating the area residential. COM. KOENITZER, calculating that with 2.7 acres at 10-20 units/acre density. there was the possibility of having 54 units on the site, f~ltthat~denstty ml~ht'&e'objectionable. Site G, 'located'bètween Randy and Blaney, beh:!-nd the Cupertino Professional Center and the Sanitary District Offices, fronting on Stevens Creek, was designated as residential by the City Council. The history of a previous application for the area was reviewed. Mr. George Saum, partner in the Cupertino Professional Center, said they had been shocked to hear the area was being designated residential. It had been designated for office complex and business when they had purchased in July of 1979. Mr. William Clark, 20054 Wheaton Drive, asked that the Site be changed back to commercial property. He submitted a petition from his neighborhood. In response to CHR. GATTO'S question, Mr. Clark said one-story buildings with parking in the rear would satisfy the signers of his petition. COM. ADAMS reminded the assembly that one of the aims of the Planning Commission during the past year was to in- crease the housing supply in Cupertino. He suggested allowing the market place to dictate for both areas. He said there was a recognized need for residential near commercial development -- a needed mix. The Commissioners agreed that allowing the market place to dictate develop~ent on Stevens Creek was responsible for the present problems there. CONSENSUS: None. Return to the issues later. . AREA H: This isolated area, presently zoned Agricultural, with access to Homestead Road through commercial property was recommended for Residential, range density of 20-35 units/acre. The high density was judged not to have an impact on surrounding residential property. AREA I: (Considered with Area H) was located as being contiguous to the Country Wood development (12 units/ acre to the east) and duplexes in Sunnyvale to the north and west. Capacity of a trunk line from the Sanitary District was a limiting consideration. The present designation of Area I is agricult~re. Assistant Planning Director Cowan called attention to AREA J, a 20-acre site (Mariani Packing Plant property), MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-327 Page 5 designated Residential -- 25-35 units/acre -- without impact- ing adjacent areas. Traffic congestion would require a de- tailed traffic report, which was said to be in' process. Mr. Dennis Cunningham, 20269 Northwest Square in the North- point Community. asked that the units be limited to two-story building. Mr. Ro~er Mayo, resident of Northpoint, asked for Site J that it be consistent and compatible with his area. Mr. Art Pittock,20299 Northwest Square, facing Mariani ~ite ~ property. He stated that his major concern was the view to the hills. High rise buildings would cyt off his view. Traffic was another consideration and he recommended the same density as was at Northpoint. Mr. Wes Williams pointed out that it might be necessary to work with "patching" in order to protect privacy intrusion. He felt there was too much of treating on the sites. Mr. John Harkless, resident of Northpoint, was concerned with traffic. Mr. Griffith C. Murray, 20277 Northbrook Square, on the corne just above the townhouses. He supported comments of the othe speakers and recommended less high density to fit in with Northpoint. Mr. Frank Mulcern, resident of The Villas, asking for Sites I Hand J, noted that the shopping center (Pay1ess) created dreadful traffic congestion. A traffic light should be in- stalled at the Carl's Jr. in order to slow traffic from Stelling and Hollenbeck. Mr. John Hackwarth, resident of Cupertino Country Wood, said he agreed with other speakers and particularly on the traffic problems. CONSENSUS: To not change designations until a traffic report was available from Mr. Viskovich -- in about three weeks. CHR. GATTO sugg~sted amplification of terms of innovative and creative in the policy statements. in the General Plan. The'aftnouncement was made that the matters would be coming back to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 24, 1980. They were asked to call and verify the date. AREA K: Two acres of fragmented ownership, since 1969, was Master Planned for residential use in the range of 4.4 to Z.7 units/acre -- a duplex density at the high end. Characte of development seemed to be the major consideration. A change in the text of the Monta Vista Plan indicate reliance on the character of proposed development. Owner of the property asked that"the density range not be changed. Norm Howard, 36-year resident in area, said he felt duplexes should not be put in totally residential neighborhood. The traffic problems would be ~xacerbated beyond control. And, he was apprehensive of non-owner homes. PC-32 7 Page 6 MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, k980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mrs. Ann4nger--· supported resident ial planning. Absentee owners in the area was a problem, she said, and she did not feel they should feel responsible to speculators. Mr. Bob Bell returned ~o the podium to explain that his whole family was in Honta Vista and that he was not to be considered an absentee speculator. He stated he had no intention of destroying the area. He said he was working on cleaning up the older.homes. Mr. Wes Williams reminded the Commission of a part of the Old Monta Vista that had developed a consensus on absentee landlordism being about 51%. He said Mr. Bell was a resi- dent and careful of maintaining the area. Mr, Williams warned ågainst block zoning, and he also recommended lowering densities. He mentioned that De Burn Associates had put up a project on De Burn and Stevens Creek with 5,000 sq. ft. lots. of 2,000 to 2,400 sq. ft. homes, and he said that each of the homes fit into the area and presented a beautiful deve10pment~ appealing and desirable. Mrs. Nancy Benewick Clarke said she had studied the area and had noticed the changes brought about by speculators. She agreed with Mr. Williams that single family structures and low density throughout would encourage people to buy and maintain the_:t.r_ homes. MT~. Ann AnRer, said that she and her husband, having duplexes, were there to take care of them. Absentee owners were not so careful and created problems. Mr. Norm Howard reminded the Commissioners that he had turned in a letter, and he wished them to know that they were concerned about numbers of people COM. KOENITZER pointed out that since there were duplexes in the area that the Commission coµld not ignore them. He said each application coming in would have to be decided at the time it came to them. The 4.4 to 7.7 range would be evaluated carefully to see whether or not it fit into the specific area to reinforce the neighborhood character. CONSENSUS: No change. AREA L: It was suggeÅ¡ted that a very minor cul-de-sac might be utilized to go into the site to raise the density from 4.4 to 5, depending, of course, on the overall plan, and depending on the street being public. Mr. Dick Childress, 22025 Regnart Road, Cupertino, said he wished to make a few points. The drawing he posted on the board showed six lots very pleasingly positioned on the property of single-family homes. The second drawing was for eight homes -- the front two facing the street and the rest being on a driveway. He noted that the architectural style was of the early 40's. Mrs. Ann Anger said she felt that. such a development would be the start of getting Old Monta Vista on the way. -, _.- ._._----- MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-327 Page 7 CRR. GATTO ment~oned that th~s was a good example of the num- bers game -- the petition to place 6 homes on a property with a density range of 4.4 units/acre. He pointed out that very often the individual project, being more pleasing than other projects, determined what was suitable for a property and a neighborhood. General Planning had to consider the finished product. Mrs. Jo Ann Gholson, 22125 Regnart Road, Cupertino, said she had already been a victim of the rounding off tbat Mr. Chil- dress had done and probably had been influenced to go along with pretty pictures. She stated that adding more houses to an area, over and above what was designated, had an impact. It seemed to her, she said, that even though we needed them, houses did not seem to be going in where they were viable and needed. She asked for four houses. Unidentified Speaker noted that one day (1990) Stevens Creek Boulevard would be shut off and the alternative route would be creating congestion on his street and other side streets. Commuter traffic had always been a problem in Monta Vista and until concrete changes or relief came along, he objected to increased densities. He asked for a bicycle path on Burn. CONSENSUS: Leave the county-city designation of 4.4 to 7.7. And, change the wording of the General Plan, line 2, delete the word "new" in order to attend to redevelopment plans. In line 4, change text to read "shall be of an ownership nature. ' A similar development pattern is essential because the older homes run to 1,000 sq. ft. and under -- out of scale with new developments. The residential development shall be similar to the existing residential and shall be single-family type. It was suggested that a change be made to Area K to agree with Area L, and the designation be single family, detached single-family structures up to 7 units shall be encouraged. CRR. GATTO asked the Staff to work on wording that would reflect the guidelines discussed by the Commissioners. COM. KOENITZER pointed out the last three lines of the Staff recommendation on Area L and noted that rather than change the density it was possible to rely on the statement made in the Staff Report to change or increase density. AREA M: The consideration is a change that invo1v~going from Residential 0-2 units/acre to a Foothill-Modified ~ Acre Slope Density designation. The consideration was whether or not the Commission wished to apply the same regu- lations to this hillside as had been applied to other hill- sides in the community. Maps of the area were exhibited and the areas not under consideration were identified. Mrs. Jaunita McClaren, 22101 Lindy Lane, Cupertino, asked for clarification of the number of homeowners under consideration She identified the five homeowners left after the others were taken away (a total of five left). She objected to the change. Reminding the Commissioners of the lengthy PC-327 Page 8 MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING meetin~ held a little over a year past, which had ended in the agreement for Residential with 0-2 units/acre, she said it was impossible to understand the sudden switch by the City, and she asked that the designation be left as it is. Based on 8.13 acres, fifteen lots (including six homes) they were only asking for nine more lots. The history of the ar.a. ",asb~iefly oµt1ined. Mr. Dennis Boghosian, {phonetic) pointed out his home and said he'd like to understand the new proposal and the why of its having been made. Assistant Planning Director Cowan explained that the Staff had always been interested in exploring the area further; bµt, at the last Planning Commission meeting, this area had been in the list of areas being reviewed under the General Plan for possible changes in density designations. Fur- ther, he explained that the ~ Acre zoning was placed on the property in 1967 for the purpose of putting roads into the area. And, since that time the hillside slope density had come about. Also, it was pointed out that development of their area had to be at one time with the condition that they participate in a joint approach to a development. CHR. GATTO explained that the broader background was whether or not the area shoµld be treated as all other hillside areas. After further lengthy discussion it was agreed that the CONSENSUS was that the area should remain Residential with 0-2 units/acre. City Attorney Kilian advised that they could subdivide as long as it was consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan would ùwaysbe paramount over any plans for the area in zoning. CHR. GATTO announced that,since they had not gotten to 82 of ITEM 81, the rest of Item 81, and Items 82 & #3 would be continµed over to the March 10, 1980 Regular Planning Commission Meeting. MOTION: Com. Adams, Approved. PASSED: Second: Com. C1aµdy 5-0 It was explained that the hillside formµla was being applied to all areas with specific slopes (General Plan reference recommended). The Commissioners felt they'd like to apply the slope density even-handedly in all areas where the criteria applied. Mr. James Patrick, Lindy Lane, reported that drain pipe problems and slide problems plagued the area. He asked that tne citizens review what was happening to the hills. He said they were coming down. MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 1980 RE~ULAR PLANNINC COMMISSION MEETING \ Assistant Planning Director Cowan advised that if the Council adopted the hilside formula, the zoning would sede the existing ~ Acre designation. City super- CONSENSUS: Agreed to no change. MOTION: Com. Claudy, Continue Agenda Item #1.2 to an April 1980 meeting in order to provide time for staff preparation. Com. Adams. Second: PASSED: 5-0 UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CHR. GATTO reported that the City Council had requested that those Commissioners whose terms would expire in April stay on until the new Council had an opportunity to appoint new Planning Commission members. They agreed to do so. REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR Assistant Planning Director Cowan reminded the Commissioners that the information for the San Diego meeting was in the packets of those attending the meeting. ADJOURNEMENT: 11:48 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: "i24~ ~ c;; 1'/, ~~ ( C airman ~/ PC-327 Page 9