Loading...
PC 01-28-80 ~~- CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF.CALIFORNIA l0300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone (408) 252-4505 PC-325 Page 1 MINUTES JANUARY 28, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER/SALUTE TO TRE FLAG: 7:35 p.m. * ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioner Claudy Commissioner Adams Commissioner Koenitzer Commissioner Blatne Commissioner (Chairman) Gatto APPROVAL/MINUTES JANUARY l4, 1980. Com. Claudy: Page 2, par. 3, line 3, strike "innovative" and insert "alleviating." Page 4, par. 5, line 5, correct number of units/acre from 5.7 to read 15.7/acre. MOTION: Com. Blaine. Approval. Second: PASSED -- UNANIMOUSLY Com. Adams 5-0 POSTPONEMENTS Assistant Planning Director Cowan requested postponement of Item #4 to February 11, 1980 and Item #5 to February 25, 198 in order to acquire sufficient preparation time for the items. MOTION: Com. Adams, to Continue. Second: Com. C1audy PASSED -- UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Planning Director Sisk called attention to the letter in the packets (from Anne L. Robertson, President of Oakde11 Ranch Homeowners Association) requesting that the app1icatinns for the Woolworth Consttuction Company be continued from the February 11, 1980 Regular Planning Commission Meeting to a future Regular Planning Commission Meeting Agenda. City Attorney Kilian advised that the proper time for con- sideration of continuance of the item would be at the ad- vertised hearing date. He stated that everyone should be granted an opportunity to be heard on the subject of con- tinuance. MOTION: Com. Claudy, Table the Request for Continuance and hear the matter at the regularly scheduled time -- the Agenda of February 11, 1980. Second: Com. Adams PASSED -- UNANIMOUSLY by CONSENSUS 5-0 * Staff Pres~nt: See page 7. PC-325 Page 2 MINUTES/3ANUARY 28, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ITEM #1, Application 2-Z-80 of CITY OF CUPERTINO: PUBLIC HEARING to consider the rezoning and prezoning of approxi- mately 138.8 acres from various City and County zoning dis- tricts to zoning districts which are consistent with the City of Cupertino's General Plan. The 138.8 acres are gen- erally bounded by Foothill Boulevard, Alcalde Road and the westerly and southerly boundaries of Inspiration Heights subdivision. The boundary also includes properties served by Miramonte and Ricardo Road. The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - February 19, 1980. Planning Director Sisk reviewed previous meetings and dis- cussions and the January 24, 1980 Staff Report. Using the maps on the board, he identified twenty islands within the area that could be pre zoned under City of Cupertino juris- diction under MORGA (Municipal Reorganization Act of 1977). MORGA was described and background information presented at COM. GATTO'S request. (Planning Director Sisk reminded the Commissioners and the public that the sole purpose of the present meeting waa to make a recommendation to the City Counc 11 on ._~h.'LJ>rC!!z_~nin8.. anA_rC!!zo!lingn~~1\il~th~]:n~on- _ ____ '~sider~tio;'-~ ~ould be considered under ¡¡eparate aDDlications.J_. - ----- _.-.~_._------~~-_._-_._------_.._.~- Planning Director Sisk continued and indicated that the area in which the hillside slope density needed to be met, if necessary through amalgamation, was the purple area on the maps. The area was further identified as being west of Stevens Canyon Road and south of San Juan (the uphill side). Mr. & Mrs. Henrv Siverin, 22570 San Juan Road, C:E-p.!r!.in() ____un asked for a quick_calcI1J~_~i()tl_()J__s1-ºPC!!__.ciJ!tlª:I..~Y...;'and it._was -·exP.J..a{neê:C~Ji"..t:.._~~£h...J>ropC!!~1;Y would be considered seDaratelv UDOlLADJ:!li.c.ation..~_ ....Al.s.a... it..JiiBS. _pointed_ auLthat-.tha-Cit.y--pro.v;ided.£.or mp rgpr.. Mrs. 'loss;i)rõperty ~owner·nal:~Aicalde and Foothill Boulevard, noted the proliferation of duplexes in her area; and, she requested that the City be consistent and permit duplex zoning for her property. Mr. Dean Sayre, said he wished to stay in the County. He took exception to the statement by Mr. Sisk that "it wasn't cast in concrete that the City would annex without approval of homeowners:' Having heard the statement frequently that "we," (the City) "would not annex without residents and property owners requesting it," he discovered that had not been meant. Noting the slope of his four lots he said it seemed to him that at least fourteen (14) acres would be needed to put a building on his property. MINUtES JANUARY 28, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-325 Page 3 Mr. Sayre added that if the City of Cupertino wished to widen the road on his side, it would have to do it over his dead body. He warned against what had been done in the past and the consequences of decisions in the future. ¡Mr. C. L. Abbott, 10351 San Jaun,located ,his property and said he did not wish annexation to Cupertino for several and a dozen reasons. Re pointed out the area of his propert that he'd lose to buildin~ of a road into the area. He noted that his property was zoned Al-10 and he saw no record of such zoning designation in Cupertino. Mrs. C. Haskell, 10651 Santa Lucia, Cupertino, called attention to the east side of Santa Lucia being zoned R1, 10,000' sq. ft. lots. However, she said that information from the City and received by her in the mail listed the same location as being 7,500 sq. ft. lots. She said she'd rather have zoning for 10,00'0 sq'. ft. because the smaller ,lots would exacerbate the traffic situation on the already very dangerous road. She predicted that the forming of an assessment district would strap retired people. And, She elected to stay in the County. Planning Director Sisk reviewed the Rl-lO and Rl-7.5 areas, explaining the difference as being the way in which devel- opment had happened over the years. As for assessment districts, he stated that the zoning or prezoning would not trigger such. He said that new development in the area would trigger assessment districts. It was also ex- plained, for Mr. Parvis Namour, 10885 Stevens Canyon Road, that the density would be set under zoning but that upon application for improvements it would be determined what mode would lend itself to the established density. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: PASSED: Com. Koenitzer. By Consensus Second: Com. C1audy 5-0 Following the outline of the Staff Report, the COMMISSIONERS discussed the problems of each area with the object of consolidating a motion. MOTION: Com. Blaine, Approval of Negative Declaration of Environmental Review on 2-Z-80. Second: Com. Claudy PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 'VOTE: MOTION: Com. Blaine, to advise City Council to prezone properties in Application 2-Z-80 as per Exhibit A of the January 24, 1980 Staff Report. Second: Com. Claudy VOTE PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 COM. GATTO informed the before the City Council wished to attend. public that the matter would be on Febru~ry 19, 1980 if they _.._---.------."..--- PC-325 Page 4 MINUTES JANUARY 28, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COM. GATTO pointed out the length of the Agenda and the improbability of completing a substantial portion of it prior to 11:00 p.m. MOTION: Com. Claudy, to Continue Regular Planning Commission Meeting, PC-325 to Wednesday evening, January 30, 1980 in order to complete Agenda Item #3. ,Second: Com. Adams VOTE: PASSED -- UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 ITEM #2, Application l-GPA-80 of CITY OF CUPERTINO: PUBLIC- REARING to consider various amendments to the City of Cuper- tino General Plan including, but not limited to: (1) Land use changes for a number of individual properties located throughout 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 transportation improvements. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date -- February 19, 1980. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the Staff Report. The first major point he made was the change in transpor- tation patterns, the different approach; and,th. secQnd point was the relationship with the State on Highway #85. He asked that the Commissioners reach a consensus position on the circulation changes and also on the tentative changes in the General Plan, both issues coming back to them at a later time (after going to Environmental Review). Circul- ation being most important, Mr. Bert Viscovich was aksed to present a summary of his January 25, 1980 Report. Director of Public Works Viskovich referred to the drawing on the board which outlined the location of the sunken Stevens Creek Boulevard, the overpass for Highway 9, exit ramps, and patterns f~r left hand turns, and access ramps. He briefed the Commissioners on the probable source of funding for the project, and he emphasized that the plan was based on projection of peak-hour trips (to and from) Cupertino in 1990. Another recommendation was that the City of Cupertino make an effort to become self reliant in terms of major improvements. Skimming through his re- port, Mr. Viskovich touched the highlights of sources of information and projections and offered to answer any questions at any time. The history of Highway #85 from 1973 to the present was outlined. A 30% increase in po1lution, 60% hcrease in fuel consumption, and 50% in- __"_~,..__ crease' in accident rate could be expected by 199D:'~~He stated that grade separation and the interconnect was recommended to raise the level of capabilitY'of each intersection. He added that the plan, as exhibited, relied on all quadrants for support. -- _._-~--_.~- MINUTES JANUARY 28, 1980 RECULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-325 Page 5 Mr. John London, attorney representing Park Plaza, with property at Portal Avenue and Stevens Creek, said he almost felt that his project had precipitated the discussion about the General Plan. He reminded the Commission that his clien s had purchased their property when 20-35 units was the' ~ecommendation of the General Plan because of a projected shortage of housing un_its vs '.J.obs... Re asked that at this time the Commissioners agree·' to an offer of 17.7 units/ acre density, which density, he said, was felt to be the level at which they could make things happen on the Park Plaza project. ~lason Chartier, developer of Park Plaza informed the ComL_:sioners that although they had aimed to provide the 20-35 units/acre on their rejected plan, he said they now hoped to be able to go forward on 17.7 units/acre with 1 1/2 parking spaces/unit. ,Except that one bedroom or studio units would require only 1 space/unit. He asked that the Commission expedite their request and act on their proposals Planning Director Sisk read a Policy from the General Plan which dealt with density and hardness of ranges that might apply. COM. KOENITZER said that if they were going to reopen change in density of various areas, then he felt they should review all of the questioned areas in a package. COM. BLAINE felt that the density of ~º:-~5.lIligl1t_<Õreªta pro~ems ,IíLeacIi·area-wneren·-"ü'z-one<rl:or such.---She suggested that the Cömmíssíön-revlewaIl properties· with 'higher ·(¡<m"í.ty. Assistant Planning Director Cowan listed the properties that were bound to be under consideration, Areas A thru E. Mr. GeorRe H. Buck, 1112 Curtner, San Jose, CA 95125, called attention to his having received a Building Permit for the northeast corner of Stevens Creek & Foothill Boule- vard. He requested a change from residential zoning to professional zoning. Mr. J. Cyril Johnson, l25 Willow Road,. Mènlo Park,des- cribed what he was constructing on his property. He related that the complex was possible through de-annexation from Los Altos. Mr. Jim Joy, 19811 Price Avenue. Cupertino, spoke of Area E and made two recommendations for changes to the General Plan 1. Re requested that area E be chanRed to 10-20. 2. He recomme~ded that the height allowance be reduced to three stories on Stevens Creek in order to permit new development to fit in with older developments. Re suggested that in Area K, 7.4 acre on the north side of 280, behind the Payles Drug Store, that the zoning be changed to accommodate a high rise, which would be more consistent in the area. Area L should be looked at to determine if increased capacity of the sewer system would enable raising the units/acre desig- nations. His reference was Resolution #4758 of August 8, 1978.) --,---- ~---_._-- PC-325 Page 6 IKUTES JANUARY 28, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING rs. Ann An er, resident of Monta Vista, felt that improving downtown Monta Vista would benefit resident& of the whole area. She also asked that the area between Imperial Avenue and aud Orange Avenue be reviewed. It had been missed to date. She &poke to the length of the Stevens Creek to Granada stretch. Stating that planned developments were already coming into the area, she recommended professional with some commercial building. (Staff advised COM. GATTO that the zoning in the area permitted professional and general adminis- trative business dffices.) COM. GATTO reminded the Commissioners that on density desig- nations, it was usual for the developers to go with the upper limit of units allowed. Polling the Commission it was found that a 10% variance (lowering of units under the established General Plan lower limit) would be satisfactory and agreeable. City Attorney Kilian advised that if Park Plaza filed a renewed application before the Planning Commission that as things stood presently they would not be able to proceed at anything less than 20 units/acre in accordance with the General Plan. Mr. GeorRe Buck requested relief from having received a Use Permit on a property that was being reconsidered; and, he asked to be able to go forward with his project. City Attorney Kilian advised that the General Plan could be continued until Wednesday with the understanding that the Buck application would be the only item discussed due to the importance of the detail of issuing a permit by the City. City Attorney Kilian suggested Executive Session might be better for rendering a decision on Mr. Buck's property. Or, continuing the matter until the 25th of February was not unreasonable. MOTION: Com. Koenitzer, to continue Application 1-GPA-80 to the February 25, 1980 Regular Planning Commission Meeting. Second: Com. Claudy. VOTE: PASSED -- UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 UNFINISRED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS Com. Adams asked for a larger waste can at the intersection of Miller and Stevens Creek. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION -----,.._--.--.-~..._.~ ...,,"'""~~._. -~-'.~-"""""'--''''''---'~"'---'-'-'''''''''~:--'~''-"-'-'''-~---..........,.......,......-.-,-,-,_--.